get_corporate_actions

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic function. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data range, or response format beyond the output 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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose plus structured docstring sections for Args and Returns. Every element adds value without redundancy.

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 one parameter and an output schema (implied to define CorporateActions), the description covers the essential information. However, it could be more complete by briefly explaining what constitutes a corporate action (e.g., dividends, splits) or noting common use cases.

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 0% coverage (no parameter description), but the description's Args section adds 'ticker (str): The symbol of the stock,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema. This compensates for the lack of schema details, though examples or format hints are missing.

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 'Retrieve corporate actions for a stock,' specifying the action (retrieve) and resource (corporate actions). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_dividends, get_splits, etc., as corporate actions is a distinct category.

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. With 60+ sibling tools covering many financial data types, explicit usage context or comparisons are absent.

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