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 historical' data access, implying read-only behavior, but does not disclose critical details like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error handling. For a financial data tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds context about tracking benchmarks, which is somewhat redundant but not wasteful. Overall, it's efficiently structured with minimal fluff.

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 retrieval, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on data format, rate limits, error responses, and practical usage examples. While the purpose is clear, the tool's operational context is underspecified for effective agent use.

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 ('from' and 'to') documented as optional date strings in YYYY-MM-DD format. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as default date ranges or date format examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 real-time and historical Treasury rates for all maturities' with the FMP Treasury Rates API. It specifies the resource (Treasury rates) and scope (all maturities, real-time/historical), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which include various financial data tools but no other Treasury-specific ones.

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 'key benchmarks for interest rates across the economy,' but this is a general benefit statement rather than actionable usage instructions. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or sibling tool comparisons are included.

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