get_stock_splits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full disclosure. It only restates the time window that is already documented in the schema default, and does not describe output format, behavior when 'from' is outside the default range, or any other side effects. This leaves the agent with minimal behavioral insight beyond the name.

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 front-loads the core action and scope. There is no extraneous information, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It states the geographic scope and time constraint, which is enough to understand basic usage. The lack of an output schema means return values are not explained, but the nature of 'stock splits' makes the output predictable.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'from' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'stock splits', and scopes it to 'Nordic instruments' and 'within the last year'. This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which mention splits, and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 clear context by specifying the geographic scope (Nordic) and the time window (last year), which implicitly tells an agent when this tool applies. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but since no other split tool exists, the context is sufficient.

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