Access detailed information on stock splits for a specific company using the FMP Stock Split Details API. This API provides essential data, including the split date and the split ratio, helping users understand changes in a company's share structure after a stock split.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Optional limit on number of results (default: 100, max: 1000) | |
| symbol | Yes | Stock symbol |
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 the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the data returned (split date, ratio) and implies a read operation with 'Access detailed information.' It does not mention return format, ordering, or pagination behavior, but for a simple data retrieval tool this is adequate but not rich.
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 concise at two sentences and front-loads the purpose. The mention of 'using the FMP Stock Split Details API' is slightly redundant since the tool itself is an API, but it does not detract significantly. No fluff or unnecessary detail.
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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context by naming the key data fields (split date, ratio). It does not elaborate on the return shape or default behavior, but the schema covers the limit default, and the description's implied plural 'splits' hints at multiple results.
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%, with both 'symbol' and 'limit' already well described. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.
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 'Access' with a clear resource ('stock splits') and scope ('for a specific company'), effectively distinguishing it from the sibling getStockSplitCalendar which covers a broader calendar view. It also names the key data fields (split date and ratio), making the tool's function unmistakable.
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 clearly indicates the tool is for querying stock splits for a specific company, which sets a clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for a calendar of splits, use getStockSplitCalendar instead.'
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.