Financial Modeling Prep MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions 'real-time or historical' data and 'precise intraday' information but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error conditions, or response format. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that convey core functionality without redundancy. The first sentence establishes purpose and API source, while the second specifies data types and intervals. However, it could be more front-loaded by immediately stating it's for intraday stock charts rather than burying that in the second sentence.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the output contains (beyond mentioning OHLC prices and volume), doesn't address data limitations or availability, and provides no examples. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without additional context about the response structure.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying interval-based data retrieval. It doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or provide examples that would enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 specific action ('Access precise intraday stock price and volume data') and resource ('with the FMP Interval Stock Chart API'), distinguishing it from siblings by focusing on intraday intervals rather than daily charts or other financial data types. It explicitly mentions retrieving real-time or historical data in intervals with key price and volume information.

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 like getLightChart, getFullChart, or getUnadjustedChart from the sibling list. It mentions retrieving intraday data but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent choose between similar charting tools.

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