proventos_ativo

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The description identifies the types of data returned (dividendos, JCP, bonificações), which adds transparency about output content. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, or what happens with assets lacking proventos. The output content disclosure earns a modest score.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without wasted words. It's appropriately brief given the tool's simplicity and complete schema coverage. It could be deemed slightly terse but is effective.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the primary source of behavioral context. It explains what data comes back (provento types) but doesn't mention sorting order, pagination beyond the limit param, or response format. For a read-only query tool with a well-defined schema, this is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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 both parameters (ticker with an example value, limit with default/range) are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by listing the types of proventos returned, which contextualizes what 'ticker' refers to, but does not exceed the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 the verb (Obtém/obtains) and resource (histórico de proventos - dividend history) with examples of provento types (dividendos, JCP, bonificações). It distinguishes from siblings by being asset-specific ('de um ativo') versus broader tools like fiis_lista or indices_b3, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. Sibling tools like cotacao_ativo, historico_ativo, and fundamentus_ativo overlap in the market-data domain, yet no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided. Context is implied (one wants dividend history) but no when-not-to-use guidance exists.

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