Financial Modeling Prep MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool accesses and analyzes data, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or details the format of the performance data. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and scope. There is no redundant or unnecessary information, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key features.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of accessing financial performance data, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., authentication, rate limits), output format, and usage guidelines, which are critical for an AI agent to use this tool correctly in a financial context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'date', 'exchange', and 'industry' parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as example values or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with extra information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Access detailed performance data by industry' and 'Analyze trends, movements, and daily performance metrics for specific industries across various stock exchanges.' It specifies the resource (industry performance data) and actions (access, analyze), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'getIndustryPerformanceSummary' or 'getHistoricalIndustryPerformance'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions analyzing trends and metrics, but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to similar tools in the sibling list, such as 'getIndustryPerformanceSummary' or 'getSectorPerformanceSnapshot'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.