get_dividendsRetrieve dividend records for shareholder payments or dividend history. Filter by tax year and limit results for targeted lookups.
List dividend records. Use when user asks about dividends paid, dividend history, or shareholder payments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 20) | |
| tax_year | No | Filter by tax year (e.g. "2025/26") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context (dividend records, shareholder payments) but no additional behavioral details such as pagination, filtering behavior beyond the schema, or return format. This is acceptable given the 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 sentences with no fluff. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the usage guidance directly follows. Every sentence earns its place.
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 fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool returns conceptually and when to invoke it; no output schema is needed for this level of simplicity.
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%, so both parameters (limit and tax_year) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which warrants the baseline score of 3.
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 dividend records') and gives concrete user intents ('dividends paid', 'dividend history', 'shareholder payments'). This is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes the tool from the many sibling 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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when user asks about dividends paid, dividend history, or shareholder payments.' It provides clear context but does not mention exclusions or alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.