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. It mentions the API source ('FMP Market Risk Premium API') and the metric's purpose, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage context. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the second sentence could be slightly more direct in linking to tool invocation.

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 tool's complexity (simple data retrieval), no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and its financial context, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or behavioral constraints, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it correctly without additional 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input (none). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. This meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.

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 the market risk premium for specific dates with the FMP Market Risk Premium API.' It specifies the verb ('access'), resource ('market risk premium'), and scope ('for specific dates'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getTreasuryRates' or 'getEconomicIndicators' which might provide related financial metrics.

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 implied usage context by stating 'Use this key financial metric to assess the additional return expected from investing in the stock market over a risk-free investment.' This suggests when the tool is useful (for risk assessment), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'getTreasuryRates' for risk-free rates) or any prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity.

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