get_dividend_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned content and exchange coverage, and 'döndürür' (returns) makes the read-only nature clear, but it says nothing about data source, latency, or behavior when a symbol has no dividend records.

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 tightly written sentences: the return payload is front-loaded and the exchange support plus examples follow. No filler or redundancy.

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 usefully names the return fields (history, annual totals, 12-month yield), and full parameter coverage means nothing structural is missing. Only the absence of edge-case behavior (e.g. no-dividend symbols) keeps it from a 5.

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%: symbol, years (1-15) and includeSplits are all documented in the schema, so the description only needs to not contradict it. The example tickers mirror the symbol parameter but add no new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (dividend/profit-share history) and enumerates the concrete outputs: annual totals and trailing 12-month yield. This clearly distinguishes it from price-oriented siblings like get_stock_history or get_earnings_info, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description notes it covers all exchanges including BIST and gives ticker examples, so the agent can infer when it applies. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, nor any pointer to an alternative tool.

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