BaeDang.info Dividend Data

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what data is returned (annual history, payment details, total return), but it does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or output format. With rich annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists returned data. There is no wasted wording, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from content returned.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully lists the returned content (annual dividend history, payment details, total return). For a simple two-parameter read-only tool, this is nearly complete, though it does not mention possible pagination or response shape.

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 only 50%: ticker has an example description, but market is just an enum with no explanation. The description says 'one security' but adds no meaning beyond the schema for how market and ticker pair together, what market values mean, or how to discover a ticker. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb (가져옵니다 / fetch) and a specific resource (종목 하나의 상세 배당 정보 / detailed dividend information for a single security), and it enumerates the content (annual dividend history, payment details, total return). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing detail for one security, though it does not name search_securities or rank_securities.

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 phrase '종목 하나의' (one security) implies this is the detail lookup after a security has been identified, which suggests use after search_securities or rank_securities. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative tool.

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

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured fields. The description adds no behavior beyond that: it does not state the default result count, the 100 cap, tie-breaking between ranks, or what the ranking output contains. Useful but not additive over 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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering both the filtering action and the ranking criteria, with no filler. It is compact and readable, though it omits the one or two clauses (defaults, return shape) that would make the brevity cost-free.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description should explain what a result row looks like and how filters combine with sorting. It covers the ranking dimensions but leaves the return shape and default behaviors unexplained, leaving real gaps for an agent composing a call.

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 78%, just under the high-coverage threshold, so the schema is doing most of the work. The description does map its named ranking dimensions onto sortBy values (yield, growth, streak, size) and implies the numeric filters, but it says nothing about market, securityType beyond the schema string, or paymentFrequency. Baseline 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 names a specific verb (순위를 냅니다 / ranks) and resource (종목 / securities) and enumerates the ranking dimensions: 배당률, 배당 성장률, 연속 증가 연수, 규모. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_securities or get_security_detail, so it falls short of a 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase '조건으로 걸러' implies this is the tool for filtered, ranked dividend lists, which distinguishes it in spirit from a plain search or detail lookup. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling alternatives, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions, so usage must be inferred.

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

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral trait, case-insensitive matching, which appears nowhere in the schema, but says nothing about result ordering, partial-match behavior beyond 'some part of the name', or how limit truncation is handled.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core search capability is front-loaded before the case-insensitivity qualifier. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 read-only search tool with a fully described schema and rich annotations, little is required, but there is no output schema and the description never says what the results contain or how they are ordered. An agent knows how to call it but not what shape of answer to expect.

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 all three parameters (query, market, limit) are already documented with examples and an enum. The description adds only the case-insensitivity note and the KR/US scope that the market enum already encodes, which is marginal value on top of a fully documented schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource (searching dividend securities across Korean and US markets) and enumerates the searchable key types: ticker, English name, and Korean name. It implicitly separates itself from get_security_detail (single-security lookup) and rank_securities (ranking) by framing the operation as a search, but never names those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader infers this is the entry point when they have a partial ticker or name rather than a known security ID. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer get_security_detail or rank_securities, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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