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 calculates an indicator based on historical price data, but does not describe the output format, error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, 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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and utility. There is no unnecessary information or redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or output details, but it efficiently conveys the core functionality 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 complexity of a financial indicator tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on the output format (e.g., numerical values, interpretation ranges), error cases, dependencies, or performance characteristics. For a tool that likely returns technical analysis data, more context is needed to ensure proper usage by 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., symbol, periodLength, timeframe with enum-like values, from/to dates). The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how periodLength affects the calculation or typical values for timeframe. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Williams %R for a stock using a specific API, with the purpose of analyzing overbought/oversold conditions and reversal signals. It specifies the verb ('calculate'), resource ('Williams %R for a stock'), and context ('using the FMP Williams %R API'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like getRSI or getADX, which are also technical indicators.

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 mentions that the tool 'helps users analyze overbought/oversold conditions and potential reversal signals,' which implies usage for technical analysis, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other indicators like getRSI or getADX in the sibling list). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or specific scenarios favoring Williams %R over other tools.

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