get_corporate_actions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It discloses the types of actions and dates included but does not mention data freshness, response size, or any limitations. It is adequate but lacks depth; no contradictions.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's output and scope.

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 no output schema, the description effectively explains the tool returns dates for corporate actions. It covers the main use case but does not describe the response format or how to interpret the data, which would be helpful for complex actions like splits. Still, it is relatively complete for a list tool.

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 100% description coverage for all three parameters (symbol, toDate, fromDate). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving upcoming and recent corporate actions. It lists specific action types (dividends, stock splits, etc.) and key dates (ex-date, record date, payment date), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_quote or search_by_symbol.

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 implies usage for fetching corporate actions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on when to omit or include the symbol parameter, though it is implied by the schema. Sibling tools are diverse, so more explicit differentiation would help.

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