Retrieve corporate actions such as dividends, capital changes, general assemblies, and rights exercises for Turkish companies by date range, action type, or company code.
Temettü, sermaye işlemleri, genel kurul ve diğer hak kullanımlarını getirir.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latest | No | ||
| to_date | No | ||
| from_date | No | ||
| action_types | No | ||
| company_codes | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Getirir' implies a read operation, but the description discloses nothing about permissions, filtering behavior, rate limits, or how the retrieval works. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately brief but arguably too terse given the tool's five undocumented parameters; still, there is no wasted text.
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?
The tool has five parameters and no annotations, yet the description provides no usage guidance or parameter documentation. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the gaps in usage and parameter semantics leave the definition incomplete for an agent to invoke 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?
The schema has five parameters at 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It enumerates the domain categories (dividends, capital transactions, general assembly, rights) but does not document any parameter such as latest, to_date, from_date, action_types, or company_codes. Partial domain context only.
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 a specific retrieval verb ('getirir') and enumerates the resource types (dividends, capital transactions, general assembly, rights exercises), making the tool's domain clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_disclosure or get_financials, so it falls short of a 5.
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 states only what the tool does; it gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives to consider. No routing information for an agent choosing among the sibling tools is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.