list_splits

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description implies historical data retrieval but doesn't specify format, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. With annotations covering safety, this earns a baseline score for adding some context about the data type.

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 at just 3 words, front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly despite its brevity.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, read-only operation) and the presence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema will handle return values, and annotations cover safety, but the description lacks parameter guidance and behavioral details that would make it more complete for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 5 parameters, the description carries full burden but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'ticker', 'execution_date', 'reverse_split', 'limit', or 'params' mean or how they affect the query. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('historical stock splits'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its many sibling tools (like list_dividends, list_quotes, etc.) beyond the specific data type, so it doesn't reach the highest level of specificity.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what other tools might be better for related tasks (like getting current splits or other financial data). The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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