Retrieve paid dividends by ticker with cursor pagination to browse historical payments. Read-only access to dividend records.
List paid dividends with cursor pagination and optional ticker filter. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Items to return (1–50; API default is 20). | |
| cursor | No | Cursor from a previous response's nextPagePath. | |
| ticker | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and mentions cursor pagination, which are genuine behavioral traits beyond the schema. It does not cover every possible detail, but for a simple read operation this is reasonably transparent.
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 short sentences deliver the core purpose, key features, and safety profile with no wasted words. The most important information is front-loaded.
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 simple, read-only list tool with three optional parameters, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter intent. There is no output schema, but the tool is simple enough that 'List paid dividends' adequately signals the response type. Minor missing details like ticker format are not critical.
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 coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents limit and cursor well. The description adds meaning by explaining that ticker is an optional filter and by framing the cursor as part of pagination, which the bare schema does not fully convey.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List paid dividends'. It also names the key features—cursor pagination and optional ticker filter—which clearly differentiate it from sibling tools like get_cash, get_positions, and get_transactions.
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 makes it clear this tool is for listing paid dividends, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or mention any sibling tool as an alternative. Usage context is implied rather than directly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.