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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does well: it states the tool is paid, that event proximity 'never changes the frozen core score,' and that it is descriptive rather than directional. It also tells the agent to check availability and price via rcq://catalog, which is important operational context for a paid 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?

Three sentences with zero filler. The paid status and primary use case are front-loaded, followed by behavioral disclaimers and the catalog pointer. 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 single-optional-header tool with no output schema, this description covers purpose, usage context, non-mutating behavior, payment gatekeeping, and availability. The main gap is that it does not describe the shape or units of the returned macro-fragility/event context, but the catalog reference and explicit non-directional framing still make selection and invocation reasonably safe.

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% because the single payment_signature parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that the tool is paid and directing the agent to rcq://catalog for current availability and price, which clarifies why the authorization header matters.

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 resource: 'Paid cross-asset macro-fragility and scheduled-event context.' It names concrete event types (BOJ, FOMC, CPI, NFP) and explicitly distinguishes itself from a directional BTC signal, which separates it from the sibling BTC-focused 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use triggers: 'when evaluating risk exposure, carry-unwind conditions, or proximity to BOJ, FOMC, CPI and NFP events.' It also gives a when-not-to-use signal by saying it is 'not a directional BTC signal,' though it does not name a specific alternative tool as a replacement.

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