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 the API source ('FMP Standard Deviation API') and the analytical outcome ('analyze volatility and risk'), but lacks critical behavioral details: required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (since no output schema exists). For a calculation tool with external API dependencies, this is insufficient.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Both sentences add value: the first states what the tool does, the second explains why it's useful. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from context).

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 (financial calculation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations and output schema, leaving gaps in understanding how to use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples, format clarifications, or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have added context like typical periodLength values or timeframe implications.

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 Standard Deviation for a stock using the FMP Standard Deviation API' - a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('Standard Deviation for a stock'). It also mentions the analytical context ('analyze volatility and risk associated with historical price data'), which adds value. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getSMA' or 'getEMA' that also calculate technical indicators.

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 the general purpose ('analyze volatility and risk') but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools for technical analysis (e.g., getRSI, getADX, getWilliams), there's no help in choosing among them.

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