get_fins_dividend

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, etc. The description adds context about returned fields but no additional behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness. It provides moderate value beyond annotations.

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?

Description is fairly concise with clear first sentence. It could be more front-loaded, and the list of fields is somewhat redundant given the output schema exists, but overall it is well-organized.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 optional params, output schema exists), the description covers parameters, returned data, and plan requirement. Minor gap: no error handling or data freshness info.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining parameters: code format (5 digits, 4-digit for ordinary shares), date formats (YYYYMMDD or YYYY-MM-DD). This adds significant meaning.

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 clearly states it retrieves cash dividend data and lists specific fields (record date, ex-dividend date, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dividend_yield_ranking or get_fins_summary.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is given. The 'Supported plans: Premium' line implies a usage constraint but does not help the agent decide between this and other dividend-related tools.

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