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 mentions the tool 'helps users analyze trends' but doesn't specify whether it's a read-only operation, what the output format is (e.g., numeric value, chart), potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a usage context. It avoids unnecessary details and is efficiently structured. However, the second sentence could be slightly more specific to improve clarity without adding bulk.

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 a financial calculation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., WMA value, time series data), error handling, or dependencies on external data sources. For a tool in this context, more detail is needed to fully guide an AI agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters (symbol, periodLength, timeframe, from, to) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how periodLength affects WMA calculation or valid timeframe values. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 'calculates the Weighted Moving Average (WMA) for a stock using the FMP WMA API,' which specifies the verb (calculate), resource (WMA for a stock), and method (FMP API). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on WMA, a specific technical indicator, unlike general tools like getSMA or getEMA. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other trend analysis tools in the sibling list beyond naming WMA.

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 'analyzing trends and identifying potential buy or sell signals based on historical price data,' which provides context for when to use it (technical analysis). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like getSMA or getEMA, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but not detailed enough for optimal sibling differentiation.

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