list_splits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Get historical stock splits' implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, pagination, or error conditions. It lacks details about what 'historical' means (e.g., date range defaults) or output format.

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 concise with just three words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted text. It's appropriately sized for a simple-sounding tool, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how parameters interact, or behavioral constraints. The context signals indicate high complexity that the description doesn't address.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'historical' which loosely relates to 'execution_date', but doesn't explain any of the 5 parameters (ticker, limit, reverse_split, params, execution_date) or their relationships. No parameter semantics are provided beyond the vague historical context.

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 'Get historical stock splits' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('historical stock splits'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., time range, ticker filtering) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_dividends' or 'list_tickers' that also retrieve financial data.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for historical data retrieval, or comparison to sibling tools like 'get_ticker_details' that might include split information. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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