Retrieve dividends, splits, and capital gains for a Yahoo Finance symbol to analyze corporate actions and adjust stock data.
Yahoo Finance corporate actions. Returns dividends, splits, and capital gains for a symbol.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Yahoo Finance symbol such as AAPL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what is returned but does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, data freshness, or any constraints beyond the parameter. This is minimal transparency.
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 sentence with 10 words, perfectly front-loaded with the tool's purpose. No unnecessary information is included.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return format, time range, or limitations. For a tool with one parameter, more detail about the output structure would improve completeness.
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% with parameter 'symbol' described as 'Yahoo Finance symbol such as AAPL'. The description adds context that the tool returns dividends, splits, and capital gains for that symbol, but does not enhance parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.
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 explicitly states 'Yahoo Finance corporate actions. Returns dividends, splits, and capital gains for a symbol.' It uses a specific verb ('Returns'), specifies the resource ('corporate actions'), and lists exact data types, distinguishing from sibling tools like yahoo_finance_ticker_dividends and yahoo_finance_ticker_splits.
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 implies when to use this tool (when needing combined corporate actions) but does not explicitly mention when to prefer individual tools like yahoo_finance_ticker_dividends or yahoo_finance_ticker_splits. No alternatives or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.