Price Adjustment Factors

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description reveals important behavior: returns per-event and cumulative factors with ex-dates, includes a reconstruction formula in meta, and critically discloses the unquantified_events field for rights issues and demergers. It also explicitly instructs the agent never to invent factors for those events, which is essential operational guidance.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: function and purpose first, concrete usage triggers second, then the critical unquantified-events caveat, then scope limitations. The important warnings are clearly flagged with 'CRITICAL' and 'NOTE', making the structure easy to parse.

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 the burden of explaining the response shape and does so well: per-event factor, cumulative factor, ex-dates, reconstruction formula in meta, and the unquantified_events field. It also covers edge behavior (rights issues/demergers without reliable factors) and scope limits (no dividends/total return), making it sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation.

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%, with symbol, ticker, and identifier all documented in the schema, so the description does not need to re-explain parameter meanings. It adds no new parameter-specific semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the load. Note that all parameters are marked optional in the schema even though their descriptions say 'REQUIRED', but that inconsistency is not introduced by the tool description.

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 opens with a specific action and object: 'Get the split/bonus adjustment-factor timeline for a stock,' and explains the purpose ('so a raw (unadjusted) price series can be reconstructed from the adjusted one'). It distinguishes itself by stating the factors cover only splits and bonuses and that dividends are not included, framing it against related corporate-action or price-history tools.

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 'USE THIS when' clause explicitly lists the triggering scenarios: suspiciously large price moves, requests for raw/unadjusted prices, or questions about adjusting for splits and bonuses. It also gives clear exclusions ('factors cover splits and bonuses only; dividends are not included'), though it does not name sibling tools such as get_corporate_actions or get_price_history as alternatives.

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