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 accessing 'detailed information' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or pagination. The description is vague about what 'detailed information' entails beyond listed examples.

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 main purpose in the first sentence and adding details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying scope and data types, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., explicitly listing output fields).

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format (e.g., JSON structure, pagination), error handling, and behavioral constraints, which are crucial for a tool accessing external API data without structured metadata.

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%, with the parameter 'symbol' documented as 'Stock symbol'. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain how the symbol parameter filters results (e.g., whether it returns trades for that stock or all trades). Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 with specific verbs ('Monitor', 'Access') and resources ('trading activity of US Senators', 'FMP Senate Trading Activity API'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'getHouseTrades' or 'getSenateTradesByName' by focusing on general Senate trading activity rather than specific names or House trades.

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 for monitoring Senate trading activity, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getSenateTradesByName' or 'getHouseTrades'. It provides some context (e.g., 'potential conflicts of interest') but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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