get_dividends

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds the asset-specific scope but does not disclose additional behaviors such as pagination, result ordering, or rate limits. This is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the action and target. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 query tool with well-documented parameters and safety annotations, the one-sentence description is mostly sufficient. However, it could mention pagination or the typical return shape, especially since there is no output schema, but the schema and annotations already cover the essential invocation details.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description only reinforces the 'asset' parameter in prose and adds no extra meaning for limit, cursor, or offset beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Get dividend distributions for a specific asset' clearly states the verb (Get), the resource (dividend distributions), and the scope (specific asset). It distinguishes this read tool from compose_dividend and other query tools by emphasizing asset-specific filtering.

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 implies a clear use case: retrieving dividends for a particular asset. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but 'for a specific asset' provides enough context to separate it from broader or mutation-focused tools.

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