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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool accesses 'latest' grades and tracks actions like upgrades or downgrades, implying read-only, non-destructive behavior. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling, which are critical for a tool interacting with external APIs like FMP Grades API.

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 core purpose ('Access the latest stock grades...') and then elaborating on the value ('providing valuable insight...'). There is minimal waste, though it could be slightly more direct by omitting redundant phrases like 'with the FMP Grades API' if not essential.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral details (e.g., API constraints, response format) and usage guidelines relative to siblings. For a basic read operation, it meets minimum viability but misses opportunities to enhance agent understanding.

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 one parameter 'symbol' documented as 'Stock symbol.' The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., 'AAPL' for Apple) or constraints. Since the schema covers the parameter adequately, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Access the latest stock grades from top analysts and financial institutions' and 'Track grading actions... for specific stock symbols.' It specifies the verb ('access,' 'track') and resource ('stock grades'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getHistoricalStockGrades' or 'getStockGradeSummary,' which likely serve related but distinct purposes.

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 tracking grading actions over time but does not specify if this is for real-time data, historical analysis, or how it differs from siblings such as 'getHistoricalStockGrades' or 'getStockGradeNews.' This lack of comparative context leaves usage unclear.

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