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 the API source and general purpose but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, the data format returned, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 directly state the tool's purpose and utility. There is no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage context from purpose.

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 likely returns complex data (symbol changes), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, data structure, error cases, and operational constraints. For a financial data tool with zero structured coverage beyond input schema, this is inadequate.

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%, with both parameters ('invalid' and 'limit') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or context for the 'invalid' filter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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: 'Stay informed about the latest stock symbol changes' and specifies it uses the 'FMP Stock Symbol Changes API' to 'track changes due to mergers, acquisitions, stock splits, and name changes.' It distinguishes from many sibling tools focused on different financial data, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'getCompanySymbols' or 'searchSymbol'.

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 'accurate trading and analysis' and mentions specific change types (mergers, acquisitions, etc.), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getCompanySymbols' or 'searchSymbol' from the sibling list. It lacks clear prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives.

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