get_dividends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions auto-detection of FII tickers but does not disclose safety, rate limits, or authentication needs. Basic behavioral context is present but not comprehensive.

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 concise: one line for purpose, one line for scope, and clear parameter descriptions. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the most important information.

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 has only two parameters and an output schema (presumably covering return structure), the description covers the essentials. It lacks details on pagination or limits, but for a dividend history tool, this is acceptable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by providing examples for ticker ('e.g. PETR4, HGLG11') and a range for years ('1-20, default 3'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default fields.

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 'Get dividend history with yield, annual summary, and individual payments', specifying the verb, resource, and what is returned. It also notes compatibility with stocks and FIIs, distinguishing itself from sibling tools like get_stock_quote or get_price_history.

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 mentions the tool works for both stocks and FIIs, with auto-detection of FII tickers. While it does not list alternatives or when not to use it, the context is clear enough for the agent to decide.

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