Retrieve dividend and payout history for a PSX stock symbol, newest first, including book-closure dates and percentages of face value.
Dividend / payout history, newest first.
Details use PSX notation, e.g. '60%(i) (D)' = 60% interim cash dividend, '(B)' = bonus shares, '(R)' = right shares. Includes the book-closure window. Percentages are of face value (PKR 10 for most PSX stocks).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| symbol | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose useful domain context (PSX notation, book-closure window, percentages of face value), which is genuinely helpful, but it doesn't state whether the call is read-only or what the return shape is.
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?
Compact, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then details. No filler sentences.
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?
The notation key is valuable for interpreting the output, but with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is only minimally adequate for an agent to call it confidently.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It mentions none — not even the required 'symbol' or the 'limit' default. The domain notation is helpful but doesn't explain parameter formats.
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?
States a clear resource (dividend / payout history) and specifies ordering ('newest first'). It does not differentiate from sibling history tools like get_eod_history or get_announcements beyond the resource itself, so it lands just short of 5.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the tool for dividend lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.