reference_get_stock_splits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention pagination, default sorting, how data is returned, or any edge cases. The single sentence 'Get historical stock splits.' is purely descriptive and offers zero transparency into the tool's behavior.

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 extremely short, but this under-specification crosses into being unhelpfully terse. While the single sentence is front-loaded, it fails to earn its place by providing necessary detail. Compare to the 'Process' example in the rubric, which received a 2 for under-specification.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, parameter usage, or any behavioral nuances. An agent would have no idea how to invoke this tool effectively based solely on the description.

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 input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema only provides names and types. The description does not compensate by explaining parameters like 'reverse_split' or 'execution_date'. It adds no semantic value beyond what the parameter names already imply, which is insufficient for a tool with multiple optional parameters.

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 historical stock splits.' clearly states the action (get) and the specific resource (historical stock splits), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like reference_get_stock_dividends and reference_get_stock_financials. However, it omits any elaboration on scope or context, so it does not fully leverage the opportunity to clarify its unique role.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only implicit context is the resource name, which is not enough to guide an agent's decision-making among many similar reference tools.

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