get_stock_dividendRetrieve historical dividend and share transfer records for A-share listed companies by providing a stock symbol like SH600519.
获取A股上市公司的历史分红送转记录。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | A股股票代码，如 SH600519 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| dividends | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds contextual scope—A-share companies and historical records—but does not elaborate on output shape or pagination; that is acceptable given the annotations and the simple nature of the operation.
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, front-loaded Chinese sentence with the key action and resource. There is no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant sibling references.
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 one required parameter, full schema coverage, rich annotations, and a declared output schema. The short description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly; it covers the only necessary scoping (A-share, historical dividends and send-transfers).
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% coverage, including a description of the symbol property with an example ('SH600519'). The tool description itself does not add parameter detail, but the schema fully carries that burden, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 specifies the verb 获取 (get), the resource (historical dividend and stock-transfer records), and the target universe (A-share listed companies). It clearly differentiates this tool from sibling stock tools like get_stock_quote and get_company_profile by naming a unique resource.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative/exclusion guidance is provided. However, the narrow scope makes the intended use (requesting dividend history for an A-share code) implied by the description. There is no sibling tool covering dividends, so no competing alternative needs to be routed away from.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.