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 accessing data via an API but does not describe response format, error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a financial data tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 well-structured in two sentences, front-loading the purpose and usage. It avoids unnecessary details but could be slightly more efficient by integrating the investment decision context more seamlessly.

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 financial data tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, and behavioral traits. While it states the purpose, it does not provide enough context for reliable tool invocation in a broader system with many siblings.

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 single parameter 'symbol' documented as 'Stock symbol.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the documentation adequately.

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: 'Understand the liquidity and volatility of a stock' and 'Access the total number of publicly traded shares for any company.' It specifies the verb ('understand,' 'access') and resource ('stock,' 'publicly traded shares'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'getAllShareFloat' or 'getMarketCap,' which might provide related 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions making 'informed investment decisions,' but does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'getMarketCap,' 'getAllShareFloat'), the lack of comparative guidance is a significant gap.

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