Retrieve S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats — companies with 25+ consecutive years of dividend increases.
Args: min_years: Minimum consecutive years of dividend increases (default 25)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| min_years | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so description adds minimal behavioral context. It does not elaborate on rate limits or auth, but is consistent and non-contradictory.
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?
Extremely concise: two sentences with purpose and parameter detail. No fluff, front-loaded with the core function.
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 simple tool (one optional param, no output schema), description is largely complete. Could mention return format (e.g., list of tickers) but not critical.
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 0%, but the description explains the parameter 'min_years' with meaning (minimum consecutive years) and default, adding value beyond the schema's type definition.
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?
Description clearly states 'Retrieve S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools which are other financial data tools but none with identical purpose.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusions. The purpose is implied, but lacking in-depth usage context.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct regulatory filing or financial data type with clear, non-overlapping descriptions. Even similar concepts like 13F holdings vs. delta are well-differentiated.
Most tools follow a consistent 'get_<noun>' pattern, with a single exception 'detect_insider_cluster'. Overall naming is predictable and readable.
17 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but justified by the broad domain of regulatory filings and financial data. Each tool serves a clear purpose.
The server covers a comprehensive set of regulatory filings (13F, Form 4, 8K, etc.) and additional financial data (analyst targets, options, short interest). Minor gaps like Form 144 are acceptable given the scope.