dividend_calc

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

The description discloses a cost and payment method (x402), which is a useful behavioral trait beyond annotations. However, it does not mention what the tool does internally, whether it is a read-only computation, what the return value looks like, or any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. It does not front-load an actionable purpose; it wastes the limited text on a category label and cost info, with no core functionality explained. Every word counts, but none of them do the work required.

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 domain (dividends) and the absence of an output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain inputs, outputs, or behavior, despite being a financial calculation tool with numerous closely related siblings (e.g., loan_calculator, compound_interest). The agent cannot safely or correctly invoke this tool based on the provided definition.

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 input schema has a single generic 'params' object with no meaningful description, and the tool description offers no hints about required properties (e.g., ticker, dividend amount, price). With 100% schema coverage that is essentially empty, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent completely in the dark about how to structure inputs.

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 merely restates the tool name ('dividend calc') and gives a broad category ('Finance & Math tool'). It lacks a specific verb or resource explaining what exactly it calculates (e.g., dividend yield, payout, growth). This does not distinguish it from the many other financial calculators in the sibling list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no examples. The only additional information is the cost ($0.001 USDC via x402), which is a billing detail rather than usage guidance. The agent has no basis to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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