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 'real-time' and 'up-to-the-minute' data, which adds useful context about timeliness, but fails to disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness guarantees, or error handling for invalid symbols.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that directly state the tool's function and key features (real-time prices, changes, volume) without any wasted words or redundant 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's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and data types but lacks details on behavioral aspects like performance or constraints, which would be beneficial for an agent to use it effectively.

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 the 'symbol' parameter documented as 'Stock symbol.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 without compensating or detracting.

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 with specific verbs ('Access real-time stock quotes') and resources ('individual stocks'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'getBatchQuotes' or 'getQuoteShort' by specifying it's for individual stock quotes with real-time data.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'real-time stock quotes' and 'individual stocks,' which suggests when to use this tool (for single-stock real-time data). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like batch quote tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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