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 mentions 'real-time updates' and 'latest forecasts', implying timeliness, but doesn't disclose critical traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, error handling, or pagination behavior (though pagination is hinted via 'page' and 'limit' parameters in the schema). The description adds some context about data sources but lacks operational 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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence. It uses two sentences efficiently to cover the tool's function and value-add (e.g., direct links to news sources). There's no redundant information, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 (a data-fetching tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error conditions, usage limits, and how it integrates with sibling tools. While it hints at real-time data and news links, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use it effectively without trial and error.

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, with clear documentation for 'symbol', 'page', and 'limit'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format constraints for 'symbol' or default behaviors). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: to provide real-time updates on analysts' price targets for stocks using the FMP Price Target News API. It specifies the resource (analysts' price targets for stocks) and the action (stay informed with real-time updates). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getPriceTargetConsensus' or 'getPriceTargetSummary', which likely serve related but distinct purposes.

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 accessing 'latest forecasts' and 'direct links to trusted news sources', but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for historical data, real-time alerts, or how it differs from other price-target-related tools in the sibling list.

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