Dividend History

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: currency varies by listing (USD for US, trading currency for MIC:TICKER), future ex-dates can appear after declaration, and each listing reports its own payments without inheriting from related listings. These are non-obvious traits an agent needs, though return shape and pagination behavior are not described.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with supporting constraints following in order of relevance. Four sentences is slightly long, and the final listing-independence sentence is verbose, but each point carries real information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing return values (ex-dividend date plus cash amount per share) and their currency basis, and it covers date-filter semantics, ordering, and the future-ex-date caveat. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by clarifying that date filters operate on the ex-dividend date (not payment or declaration date) and restates the currency-per-listing rule that no parameter captures. It does not add further syntax beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the stored declared cash dividends of an exact stock or ETF listing, newest first.' It clarifies the data domain (declared cash dividends) and scope (a single exact listing), leaving no ambiguity about what is returned.

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?

Implies usage context by stating that date filters apply to the ex-dividend date and that listings must be exact, but it never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives (e.g., price vs. dividend data). There is no direct sibling for dividends, so this gap is partly structural, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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