Dividend history for a stock or distributing ETF — ex-dividend date, payment date, and amount per share. Mirrors what the Market Hub shows. Not applicable to crypto.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many recent dividends to include. Defaults to 12. | |
| ticker | Yes | Ticker symbol (e.g. AAPL, VTI). Stocks and distributing ETFs only — not crypto. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds the data source (Market Hub) and the security scope (stocks/distributing ETFs), which is useful context. It does not contradict annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the key caveat. No filler or redundancy.
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 data-fetch tool, the description covers the purpose, data fields, and applicability. The schema covers parameters. With good annotations and no output schema, it is reasonably complete, though it doesn't mention response ordering or pagination.
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 coverage is 100% because both 'ticker' and 'limit' have descriptive text. The description reinforces the ticker scope ('Stocks and distributing ETFs only — not crypto') which is consistent with the schema but adds no new parameter semantics.
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 provides dividend history for stocks or distributing ETFs, listing specific data fields (ex-dividend date, payment date, amount per share). It differentiates from siblings by the explicit 'Not applicable to crypto' caveat.
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 when to use it (when dividend history is needed) and explicitly excludes crypto, giving a clear exclusion. It does not name alternative tools, but the scope is well-defined relative to sibling tools.
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.
With 57 tools, most have distinct purposes (market data, journaling, watchlists). A few related tools (get_price_alignment vs get_crypto_price_alignment, get_market_pulse vs get_market_movers) could cause miselection, but descriptions clarify asset types and scope.
Tools predominantly use get_/list_/create_/update_/delete_ verbs with clear noun suffixes. Minor deviations like start_here, whoami, add_to_watchlist, and remove_from_watchlist break the pure verb_noun pattern, but the style is consistent and readable.
At 57 tools, the server is far beyond the well-scoped range. While the domain is broad, this many tools will overwhelm an agent's capability to select accurately, and many could be consolidated (e.g., separate financial statements).
The server covers watchlist CRUD, trading journaling, market data (fundamentals, statements, news, transcripts), analysis tools, and community features. No obvious dead ends; lifecycle coverage is thorough for the described domain.
