Get HoodGrow corporate actions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it distinguishes pending (on-chain staged) from recent (Robinhood ledger) and notes the cost implication of scoping. It does not describe response format or pagination, but that is less critical given the read-only nature and simple optional parameter.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by parameter guidance. No redundant or filler content; every word adds meaning.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter behavior, and cost. It could mention return structure or limits, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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% since the symbol parameter is described. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the trade-off of omitting the symbol (all tokens) and noting the cost benefit of scoping. This goes beyond the baseline 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 clearly states the tool lists corporate actions (splits, dividends, name changes) with a temporal distinction (pending vs recent). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_catalog and get_token by specifying its unique resource (corporate actions) and data sources (on-chain and Robinhood ledger).

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 explicit guidance on parameter use: pass a symbol to scope to one token (noting it is cheaper), or omit it for all tracked tokens. It implies the tool is for querying corporate actions, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, hence not a 5.

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