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 the API source ('FMP SMA API') and the analytical purpose, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of the returned data. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and utility. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the core function. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage guidance into a distinct part.

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 of a financial calculation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., rate limits, data format), does not explain the output, and provides minimal usage guidance. This is inadequate for a tool that likely returns numerical data requiring interpretation.

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, so the schema fully documents all parameters (symbol, periodLength, timeframe, from, to). The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the significance of periodLength or timeframe choices. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Calculate the Simple Moving Average (SMA) for a stock using the FMP SMA API.' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), resource ('Simple Moving Average'), and API source. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getEMA or getWMA, which are also technical indicators, though the SMA-specific focus is implied.

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 minimal usage guidance: 'This tool helps users analyze trends and identify potential buy or sell signals based on historical price data.' This implies a context of financial analysis but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., getEMA for exponential moving average) or any prerequisites. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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