［台美股題材與高股息］查詢台股高股息 ETF（0056、00878、00919、00929、00713、00940 等）每期配息、除息日、發放日。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "stocks__get_etf_dividends"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | ETF 代號；不填回傳總表 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries more burden, but it does disclose the key returned content: periodic dividends, ex-dividend dates, and payment dates. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, historical scope, or pagination, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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 a single tightly written sentence with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by concrete examples and the returned fields. There is no redundant or wasted text.
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?
For a simple one-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential purpose and output fields, while the schema fully documents the optional code parameter. It is nearly complete, with the main remaining gap being explicit differentiation from the sibling ETF dividend estimate tool.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single optional code parameter, including the behavior when omitted (returns a summary table). The description adds example ETF codes but does not add parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb (查詢 / query) and resource (Taiwan high-dividend ETFs such as 0056, 00878, etc.) and names the returned data fields (每期配息、除息日、發放日). It clearly tells an agent what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the related sibling stocks__estimate_etf_dividend_2027.
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 states the tool's purpose but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. An agent can infer that it is for ETF dividend lookups, but nothing routes it away from the similarly named estimate_etf_dividend_2027 tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.