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 ('FMP Search Stock News API') but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation (implied by 'search'), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior beyond the 'page' and 'limit' parameters, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding operational 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core functionality and API, the second adds usage intent. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Search for stock-related news') and avoids redundancy. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the purpose and usage into one smoother sentence.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., news articles with fields like title, date, content), how results are ordered, or any limitations (e.g., date range constraints, symbol validation). For a search tool with multiple parameters and no structured output definition, more contextual detail is needed to guide effective use.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters (symbols, from, to, page, limit). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'ticker symbol or company name' (though the schema only specifies 'symbols'), but doesn't clarify if 'company name' is supported or provide additional context like format examples or search semantics. 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 stock-related news' using the FMP API, specifying it finds news by 'ticker symbol or company name'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'getStockNews' (which likely retrieves general news) by emphasizing search functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other search tools like 'searchCryptoNews' or 'searchForexNews' beyond the 'stock-related' qualifier.

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 context by stating 'to track the latest developments', suggesting it's for monitoring recent news. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getStockNews' (which might fetch general news without search parameters) or other search tools for different asset classes. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative alternatives are mentioned.

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