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 full burden. It mentions 'real-time updates' and 'direct links to trusted news sources and stock prices,' which adds some behavioral context, but lacks critical details like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, error handling, or data freshness guarantees. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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 reasonably concise and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. However, it includes some marketing language ('help you stay ahead of market trends') that doesn't add functional value, and could be more tightly focused on the tool's specific functionality.

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 tool that fetches potentially complex data (analyst grade changes with multiple data points), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, what fields are included beyond those mentioned, how to interpret the results, or error conditions. The description provides basic purpose but lacks the depth needed for effective tool 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 already documents all three parameters (symbol, page, limit) with their types and descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining symbol format constraints or how pagination works. 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: 'provides real-time updates on stock rating changes' with specific details like 'grading company, previous and new grades, and the action taken.' It distinguishes itself from general news tools by focusing specifically on analyst grade changes, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getStockGradeLatestNews' or 'getStockGrades'.

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 staying 'informed on the latest analyst grade changes' but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or compare it to sibling tools like 'getStockGradeLatestNews' or 'getStockGrades' that might serve similar purposes.

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