stock_actions

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the types of information returned (dividends, splits, stability) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, any rate limits, or data freshness. For a retrieval tool this is a moderate gap.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a scannable bullet list of data categories, then an Args section. Every line adds information and there is no redundant filler.

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 a single required parameter, an output schema, and a clear purpose. The description covers the parameter and the data categories. However, it omits usage guidance and behavioral context (e.g., data freshness, read-only nature), which are important when no annotations are present. Overall it is mostly complete but has clear gaps.

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?

The schema provides no description for the ticker parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates by defining it as an 'Indian stock ticker symbol' and providing examples ('RELIANCE', 'TCS', 'INFY'), giving the agent concrete usage guidance. It does not mention case sensitivity or exchange suffixes, but for a single parameter this is adequate.

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 verb and resource: 'Get corporate actions (dividends, stock splits) for an Indian stock.' The bullet list further specifies the scope (dividend payments, yields, history, splits, stability). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like stock_quote or company_fundamentals by the unique resource it targets.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as stock_quote or company_fundamentals. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage. No exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions are mentioned.

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