Get HoodGrow corporate actions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description reveals rich behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains the two data sources (on-chain ERC-8056 vs official registry cache), the polling interval (every minute), ordering (pending vs recent), and cost implications. This far exceeds the simple read-only/idempotent hints provided by annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose and action types, parameter usage with cost implication, and technical source/update details. No redundancy or fluff, and the most important info is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what data it returns (pending and recent actions, types), how it detects them, and update cadence. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide when and how to call it.

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?

The schema already covers the single 'symbol' parameter with a good description (100% coverage). The tool description adds the 'cheaper' nuance and explicitly reinforces the scope-vs-all behavior, which is meaningful extra value beyond the schema.

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 the tool retrieves corporate actions (splits, dividends, name changes) and differentiates it from sibling tools by focusing on a unique data domain. The verb 'get' plus explicit resource and examples make the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives concrete usage context: pass a symbol for a scoped, cheaper query, or omit it for all tokens. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the parameter guidance is clear and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.