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 'real-time' and 'FMP Stock Price Change API,' hinting at live data and a specific source, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. There is no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key features.

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 (e.g., structure of price change data), error cases, and operational constraints, making it insufficient for effective tool use in a broader 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 does not add any semantic details beyond this (e.g., format examples like 'AAPL' or 'MSFT'), so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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: 'Track stock price fluctuations in real-time' and 'Monitor percentage and value changes over various time periods.' It specifies the verb ('track,' 'monitor') and resource ('stock price fluctuations'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'getQuote' or 'getHistoricalMarketCap,' which might provide similar 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 mentions monitoring changes 'over various time periods, including daily, weekly, monthly, and long-term,' which implies usage for time-based analysis. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'getQuote' for current price, 'getHistoricalMarketCap' for historical data), and lacks prerequisites or exclusions.

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