get_splits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load. It does disclose the default output format (text) and that results are both 'upcoming and recent', which is useful scope context, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or data freshness/latency. Adequate but thin for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The final sentence partially duplicates the schema's format default, a minor redundancy that keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should sketch the return value; 'splits with ratios' plus the text/json toggle covers the essentials for a simple read tool. Missing only secondary detail such as ordering or pagination of max_results, which keeps it below 5.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including the YYYY-MM-DD format and the text default. The description's mention of format=json merely restates the enum, adding no syntax or default semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource (returns stock splits with ratios), which an agent can immediately distinguish from price, profile, or financials siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from, but the resource is unambiguous and unique in the toolset, so it falls 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?

'Use for tracking share split events' gives one implied usage context but no when-not conditions and no named alternatives. With 20 sibling tools, an agent gets no routing guidance beyond the obvious topic match, so this is minimum viable.

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