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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool provides 'detailed information' including 'split date and split ratio,' but lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. The mention of 'API' implies network calls but does not specify behavior beyond data retrieval.

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 main purpose. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the second sentence could be slightly more direct. Overall, it efficiently conveys the tool's function without waste.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with two parameters. It fails to address behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or output format, which are crucial for an AI agent to use the tool effectively. The description covers basic purpose but misses deeper contextual needs.

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 clear documentation for 'symbol' and 'limit' parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints on symbol format. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 detailed information on stock splits for a specific company.' It specifies the verb ('access') and resource ('stock splits'), and mentions the data source (FMP Stock Split Details API). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getStockSplitCalendar' or 'getSymbolChanges', which might also relate to stock splits or corporate actions.

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 API source but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify if this is for historical splits only or how it differs from 'getStockSplitCalendar' in the sibling list.

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