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 API source ('FMP Search Crypto News API') but does not describe key behaviors such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, pagination details (beyond schema defaults), or the format of returned news data. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and API source, and the second clarifies the input method. There is no redundant information, and it is front-loaded with essential details, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, error cases, and usage context relative to siblings. While the schema covers parameters well, the description does not compensate for missing annotations or output information, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.

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 description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, which has 100% coverage. It mentions 'entering their name or symbol' for the 'symbols' parameter, but the schema already describes it as 'Comma-separated list of cryptocurrency symbols.' Other parameters (from, to, page, limit) are not addressed in the description. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description does not significantly 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's purpose: 'Search for cryptocurrency news' using a specific API, with the ability to 'retrieve news related to specific coins or tokens by entering their name or symbol.' It specifies the verb (search/retrieve) and resource (cryptocurrency news), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'getCryptoNews' or 'searchStockNews', which prevents a score of 5.

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 'getCryptoNews' (which might fetch general crypto news without filtering) or 'searchStockNews' (for stock-related news), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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