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 tool 'quickly access' data and provides 'a consolidated summary,' hinting at read-only behavior and aggregated output. However, it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and followed by details on data points. Both sentences contribute value: the first explains what the tool does, and the second clarifies the output's utility. There's no redundant information, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the two sentences more tightly.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and output data points adequately. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication or error handling, and without an output schema, it doesn't explain the return format. For a simple tool, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement in operational context.

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 'symbol' parameter documented as 'Stock symbol.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., 'AAPL' for Apple) or validation rules. Since the schema already provides adequate documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance or detract from parameter understanding.

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 a consolidated summary of market sentiment for individual stock symbols' with specific data points like 'strong buy, buy, hold, sell, and strong sell ratings.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'getStockGrades' (historical) and 'getRatingsSnapshot' (snapshot) by focusing on an overall summary. However, it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 'an overall view of analyst ratings' and 'understand the overall consensus,' suggesting it's for quick sentiment checks. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getStockGrades' (detailed historical) or 'getRatingsSnapshot' (current snapshot), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is contextual but lacks specificity.

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