get_calendarUpcoming Fed/ECB/BLS events with official links. Call this when you need to know about scheduled macro events.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_calendar"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / days / descriptionRemoved value: -"look-ahead window in days (default 90)"Input schema / properties / days / descriptionAdded value: +"look-ahead window in days (default 90)"Input schema / properties / days / descriptionRemoved value: -"look-ahead window in days (default 90)"Input schema / properties / days / descriptionAdded value: +"look-ahead window in days (default 90)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds useful scope by naming the covered institutions and noting official links, but it does not disclose default lookahead, data freshness, or return format details.
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 short sentences, front-loads the resource scope, and immediately follows with a usage condition. There is no superfluous language.
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 calendar lookup with no output schema, the description covers the event sources and usage condition. However, it leaves the 'days' parameter undocumented and does not clarify the default horizon or output structure, which are meaningful 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 only parameter, 'days', has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all. The agent can infer a lookahead window from the name and min/max constraints, but the description does not explain its meaning or default behavior.
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 resource: upcoming Fed/ECB/BLS macro events with official links. It is specific enough to distinguish from general news or macro tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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 explicitly says to call this when the agent needs scheduled macro events, which gives clear usage context. It does not describe when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling data tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.