bio-catalyst

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

Discloses events are verified and linked to official sources, and mentions free preview with full data inline. However, with no annotations, it fails to clarify potential restrictions, auth needs, or response behavior on errors.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load core action and add pricing context without 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?

Adequately covers key points for a simple tool (what, for whom, source, pricing). Lacks explicit return format or edge-case handling, but sufficient given minimal parameters and no output schema.

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 has 0% description coverage; description merely repeats 'ticker' without adding format, examples, or domain restrictions, insufficient for a tool with zero schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns verified catalyst events for one public company by ticker, distinguishing it from siblings by specifying 'public company' vs drug or upcoming events.

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?

Implies usage when needing catalyst events for a specific ticker, but lacks explicit when-to-use or not-use guidance relative to sibling tools catalyst_for_drug and upcoming_catalysts.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that events are 'verified' and 'linked to official source', suggesting curated data, but does not disclose response format, error handling, or additional behaviors.

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?

A single sentence front-loaded with the action ('Return'), 14 words with no redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides basic intent but lacks details on return structure (e.g., fields, pagination) and does not leverage sibling context for completeness.

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 has 0% coverage, but the description clarifies that the 'name' parameter refers to a 'drug/product name', adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, format or constraints are not specified.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('verified catalyst events referencing a drug/product name'), and the context of sibling tools (catalyst_for_company, upcoming_catalysts) indicates differentiation by entity type.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., 'Use this for drugs, catalyst_for_company for companies'). The context must be inferred from the name and description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that data is verified against official sources and includes sourceUrl, sourceField, and verifiedAsOf stamp. It also clarifys that it is scheduling/reference data. This is fairly transparent for a read-only query tool.

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, about 4 sentences, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value, but some minor redundancy (e.g., 'VERIFIED against and linked to their official source' could be slightly tighter).

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?

No output schema, but the description explains what each record includes (sourceUrl, sourceField, verifiedAsOf). It covers the main functionality well, though lacks details on pagination or date range limits beyond the days parameter.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already describes each parameter adequately.

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 the tool returns upcoming biotech/pharma catalysts with specific types (readouts, adcom, approvals). It emphasizes verification against official sources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like catalyst_for_company or catalyst_for_drug, which are more specific.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The disclaimer 'not investment advice' is not usage guidance. The description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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