Get dividend history for a Yahoo Finance symbol such as AAPL, including Unix timestamps, amounts, splits, and capital gains.
Yahoo Finance dividends. Returns the dividend events for a Yahoo Finance symbol such as AAPL, each with a Unix timestamp and an amount. The response object also has splits and capital_gains fields.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape: a list of dividend events with Unix timestamps and amounts, plus the presence of splits and capital_gains fields on the response object. It doesn't cover auth, rate limits, or read-only status, but the output behavior is the key missing structured info and it is supplied.
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 tight sentences that front-load the core purpose; the second sentence on the response shape earns its place by describing output. No filler or redundancy.
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 correctly describes the returned fields (timestamp, amount, splits, capital_gains). Combined with the single documented parameter, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly; only usage routing among sibling dividend/split/capital-gain tools is left implicit.
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?
Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the symbol. The description restates the same example ('such as AAPL') without adding format, exchange-suffix, or validity rules beyond what the schema provides. 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the dividend events for a Yahoo Finance symbol') and clarifies the scope (dividend events with timestamp and amount). This distinguishes it from siblings like yahoo_finance_ticker_splits and yahoo_finance_ticker_capital_gains, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as yahoo_finance_ticker_actions. Usage is implied by the purpose, but the mention that the response also carries splits and capital_gains fields hints at overlapping siblings without clarifying which tool to prefer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.