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 general usefulness but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format looks like (especially without an output schema), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second provides usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 (search with three parameters), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the results look like, potential limitations, or behavioral traits. For a tool with no structured metadata beyond the input schema, the description should provide more operational context.

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 already documents all three parameters (query, limit, exchange) with their types and basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the query is for company/asset names. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ticker symbols, company names, and exchange details for equity securities and ETFs' using the 'FMP Name Search API'. It specifies the exact resource (equity securities and ETFs) and verb (search), and distinguishes from siblings like searchSymbol or searchCompaniesByName by focusing on name-to-symbol lookup rather than broader searches.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'when you know the full or partial company or asset name but not the symbol identifier'. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, but the context is sufficiently clear to guide appropriate usage.

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