get_dividends

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

The description explicitly states 'Zero outbound HTTP' and 'Read-only', which are important side-effect disclosures despite the absence of annotations. It also reveals output behavior (sorted by pay_date DESC, includes gross/tax/net) providing a transparent view of what the tool does.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. All key information (filters, sorting, currency, side effects) is packed efficiently without fluff.

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 there is no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of the output: rows sorted by pay_date, with gross/tax/net in BRL. It does not enumerate all returned fields or specify data types, but for a list operation this is sufficient. The absence of a stated output schema is partially mitigated by the clear mention of the main fields.

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 provides no descriptions for the six parameters, and the description only partially explains them. It names the filters (ticker, asset_class, kind, date-range) and explains 'limit' rows and sorting, but does not define allowed values, formats (e.g., date format), or the meaning of 'kind'. This adds some meaning but leaves substantial gaps.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'dividend/JCP payouts', distinguishing it from siblings like get_transactions and get_cash_flows. It is specific and unambiguous about the tool's primary function.

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 notes optional filters (ticker, asset_class, kind, date-range) and a limit, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. It implies usage for dividend-specific queries but lacks an explicit when-not condition. Still, it provides enough context for typical use.

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