get_splits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action (fetching data) without detailing response format, date-range behavior, pagination, or error conditions. It does not add meaningful transparency beyond what the tool name already conveys.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb and resource. Every word earns its place and there is no extraneous content.

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 is relatively simple and the schema provides good parameter definitions, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least hint at the return shape or filtering behavior. It does neither beyond stating 'historical split data', leaving some ambiguity for an agent. Overall, it's adequate but not rich.

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 the schema already explains all parameters: ticker (required), startExDate, and endExDate. The description's phrase 'for a given ticker' adds minimal context but does not explain the date parameters or their interaction. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 'Fetches historical split data for a given ticker' uses a specific verb ('Fetches'), identifies the resource ('historical split data'), and the ticker scope. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_dividend_distributions or get_end_of_day_prices because it targets splits specifically.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, preconditions, or related tools. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and resource, so an agent gets no explicit decision support.

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