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 using the 'Top Traded Stocks API' and tracking activity, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like. The description is vague about implementation details.

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 but contains some redundancy (e.g., 'most actively traded stocks' and 'highest trading volumes'). It could be more streamlined, though it's not overly verbose. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose, but the second sentence adds minimal new information.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., list format, fields included) or behavioral aspects like API constraints. For a simple tool with no parameters, it's adequate but leaves gaps in understanding the output.

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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.

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: 'View the most actively traded stocks' and 'Identify the companies experiencing the highest trading volumes'. It specifies the action (view/identify) and resource (stocks/companies), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getActivelyTradingList' or 'getBiggestGainers'.

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 tracking 'where the most trading activity is happening', but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to sibling tools like 'getActivelyTradingList' or 'getBiggestGainers'.

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