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 the API source and data types but lacks critical behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, response format, or data freshness. The description does not contradict annotations, but it is insufficient 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, stating the core purpose in the first sentence. It efficiently lists the data returned without unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage context from data specifics, but overall, it avoids waste and is appropriately sized.

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 information on response structure, error cases, rate limits, and practical usage scenarios. While it covers the basic purpose, it does not provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional assumptions.

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%, so the schema fully documents the parameters (symbol, from, to). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, 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 stock price and volume data without adjustments for stock splits' using the 'FMP Unadjusted Stock Price Chart API.' It specifies the exact data returned (open, high, low, close prices, and trading volume) and distinguishes it from adjusted data tools, though no explicit sibling differentiation is mentioned beyond the 'unadjusted' aspect.

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 does not mention sibling tools like 'getDividendAdjustedChart' or 'getFullChart,' nor does it specify use cases or exclusions. The context is implied (e.g., for accurate historical analysis without split adjustments), but no explicit usage instructions are given.

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