Calculates the dividend per share by dividing total dividend payout by number of outstanding shares. Returns the quarterly dividend amount per share rounded to 2 decimal places. (cost: 1 credit)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| num_shares | No | integer, required, number of outstanding shares (must be positive) | |
| total_dividend | No | number, required, total dividend payout amount |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds useful context beyond the annotations: the output is a quarterly dividend amount per share rounded to 2 decimal places and the call costs 1 credit.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the calculation, the second specifies the return format, and the third discloses cost. The purpose is front-loaded with no filler.
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 two-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description covers the formula, the output precision and unit (quarterly, 2 decimals), and the cost. Annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameter constraints, so nothing material is missing.
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% and both parameters are thoroughly described in the input schema, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond restating 'total dividend payout' and 'number of outstanding shares.' 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Calculates the dividend per share') and even gives the formula ('dividing total dividend payout by number of outstanding shares'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling calculators like calculate_interest or calculate_discount.
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 implied by the tool's clear name and formula, but the description never states when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other financial calculators) or any preconditions beyond what the schema already enforces.
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.