list_eventsThe corporate-action tape: splits, distributions and multiplier changes read from chain state, each with a transaction hash. Newest first by the time the event took effect, which is chronology and not a ranking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many events to return. Default 50, maximum 500. | |
| since | No | ISO 8601 date. Only return events effective on or after this date. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that events are read from chain state and ordered chronologically (newest first). It does not mention side effects, error conditions, or rate limits, but for a read-only list operation it is fairly transparent.
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 concise sentences front-load the core function and ordering, with no fluff. Every sentence adds value.
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?
No output schema, but description covers event types, transaction hash, and ordering. It does not detail exact fields returned or default limit, but schema provides that. Overall adequate for a list endpoint with simple parameters.
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% (both parameters described). The description adds meaning by clarifying ordering semantics ('chronology, not ranking'), which helps interpret the 'since' parameter and overall output. This goes slightly beyond baseline.
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 it lists corporate actions (splits, distributions, multiplier changes) from chain state with transaction hashes. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_stock or list_issuers.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by describing what it does, but no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' is stated.
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.