Fund Position Dividends

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description usefully adds an auth requirement and the fact that results are paginated, which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of describing the default time window behavior or page-size limits.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler; the core purpose leads, followed by auth, then parameter sourcing. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries some burden for describing the return, but only says records are 'paged' without noting response shape or pagination metadata. For a 7-parameter paginated read tool the auth, sourcing and pagination hints are adequate but not complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented (including the _jq filter and unix-seconds ranges). The description restates currency/start/end/page/size and adds a provenance note for counter_id, but this only marginally exceeds the schema and does not clarify defaults or units beyond what is already written.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a held fund's dividend records'), with the qualifier 'held' distinguishing it from the non-position dividend tools (dividend, dividend_detail) and the paged nature signaled explicitly. An agent can tell this apart from sibling fund_position_* tools without opening a schema.

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?

Adds a real prerequisite ('Requires auth') and tells the agent where the required key comes from (fund_position_overview), which is genuine routing guidance. It does not, however, indicate when to prefer this over other dividend or fund_position tools, nor any exclusion conditions.

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