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 uses the 'FMP Search Forex News API,' which adds some context about the data source, but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'limit' parameters but not explained), or what the output looks like (no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for a search tool with multiple parameters.

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 function and key feature. There's no unnecessary fluff, and each sentence adds value: the first introduces the tool and API, the second highlights the targeting capability. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or use cases.

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 annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, output format), doesn't explain when to use vs. alternatives, and relies heavily on the schema for parameter documentation. For a search tool in a financial data context, this leaves the agent with insufficient guidance on effective usage and error handling.

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%, with clear descriptions for all 5 parameters (e.g., 'Comma-separated list of forex pairs' for 'symbols'). The description adds marginal value by emphasizing 'specific currency pairs' and 'focused updates,' which reinforces the purpose of the 'symbols' parameter but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 foreign exchange news' using a specific API, with the ability to 'find targeted news on specific currency pairs.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('foreign exchange news'), and scope ('specific currency pairs'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getForexNews' or 'searchCryptoNews' beyond mentioning 'forex' focus.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions 'targeted news on specific currency pairs' and 'focused updates,' which implies it's for filtered searches, but doesn't specify when to choose this over sibling tools like 'getForexNews' (which might fetch general forex news) or 'searchStockNews.' No explicit alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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