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 states the tool retrieves a 'snapshot' and analyzes performance, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or response format. For a read operation with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 analysis scope. There is no unnecessary information, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the retrieval and analysis aspects.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the snapshot includes (e.g., metrics, time frames), how results are structured, or any limitations. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed for effective use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (date, exchange, sector). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples for optional parameters or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles all parameter documentation.

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: 'Get a snapshot of sector performance' and 'Analyze how different industries are performing in the market based on average changes across sectors.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('sector performance'), and scope ('snapshot'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getHistoricalSectorPerformance' or 'getSectorPESnapshot'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions analyzing performance 'based on average changes across sectors,' but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or direct comparisons to sibling tools such as 'getIndustryPerformanceSnapshot' or 'getHistoricalSectorPerformance.'

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