Get Stock Split History

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing the types of splits (forward/reverse), data fields (dates, ratios, type classification), and the specific cumulative 2-year reverse split ratio. No contradictions with 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?

The description is two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a specific compliance context. Every word adds value; no 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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated), so the description does not need to explain return values. It provides a complete overview of the data included and a specific use case. For a single-parameter tool with a clear purpose, this is sufficient.

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 100% with one required parameter (ticker) documented in the schema. The description does not add new semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verbs and resources: 'Get stock split history for a company' including forward and reverse splits with dates, ratios, etc. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., other financial data retrieval tools) by focusing exclusively on stock splits.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for NASDAQ/NYSE minimum bid-price compliance and understanding cumulative reverse splits. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar data.

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