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 Stock Symbol Search API') and search scope ('global markets'), but fails to describe critical behaviors such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of results. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in transparency.

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 capabilities. There is no wasted language, and it efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It omits details on result format, error conditions, and behavioral constraints like rate limits or authentication. While it covers the basic purpose, it does not compensate for the missing structured data, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 input schema already fully documents the parameters ('query', 'limit', 'exchange'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying search functionality ('search by company name or symbol'), which is already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing 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: 'find the ticker symbol of any stock' using the 'FMP Stock Symbol Search API' with search capabilities 'by company name or symbol across multiple global markets.' It specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('ticker symbol'), and scope ('global markets'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchCompaniesByName' or 'searchCompaniesBySymbol' that might serve similar functions.

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 mentions searching 'by company name or symbol' but does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools that might overlap (e.g., 'searchCompaniesByName'). This lack of comparative guidance leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios independently.

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