stock_splits

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

The description only states 'gets' indicating a read operation, but with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, required permissions, or details about the output. For a read tool, minimal description is acceptable, but here it falls short given the absence of 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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences with no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description does not hint at what the output contains (e.g., dates, ratios). For a simple tool, this may be adequate, but additional context would improve completeness, especially given the complexity of financial data.

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 parameter 'symbol' is explained as 'Stock ticker symbol (e.g., "AAPL")', which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates only partially by providing an example and a brief definition.

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 'Gets stock split history for a stock,' which clearly indicates the action (gets) and the specific resource (stock split history). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dividends, stock_price, and stock_earnings, which cover different data types.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusion criteria or context that would help select between stock_splits and other tools for similar data.

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