Retrieve a corporate action announcement by ID to get details on dividends, splits, and mergers.
Retrieves a single corporate action announcement by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The corporate announcement's id |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.2Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"The corporate announcement’s id"New value: +"The corporate announcement's id"v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation via 'Retrieves' but discloses no other behavioral traits such as 404/error handling, permissions, or what happens if the ID does not exist. The description is minimal and does not add value beyond the name and parameter schema.
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 concise sentence that directly states the action without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists) the description is adequate for basic usage. However, it lacks context on error cases, prerequisites, or how this fits with the plural sibling tool, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
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 the 'id' parameter. The description's 'by ID' adds marginal emphasis but no new semantic detail, matching 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 retrieves a single corporate action announcement by ID, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_corporate_action_announcements' (plural) by indicating it operates on a single known ID.
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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is for fetching a specific announcement when the ID is known, but it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this versus the plural sibling tool or mention alternatives/exclusions. Guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.