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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses ordering (date order), result content (blended probabilities), the HTTP endpoint/verb, and the x402 $0.01 cost, and says the response shape matches /v1/calendar. It does not cover pagination, freshness/delay, or whether the crypto filter can be overridden, leaving real behavioral gaps.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, and the bracketed transport/cost/doc block is well compartmentalized. The first sentence ('Upcoming crypto event resolutions') largely duplicates the second and could be dropped, but overall there is little waste.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers ordering, content, cost, and response shape (via the /v1/calendar reference), which is solid. However it leaves the two parameters undocumented and the crypto-vs-category relationship unresolved, so an agent still has gaps before it can call it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters, yet it never explains what 'days' controls or why a 'category' enum exists on a tool it calls pre-filtered to crypto. The latter creates ambiguity — it is unclear whether passing category=crypto is redundant or whether category can broaden the tool beyond crypto. No parameter-level meaning is added.

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 names a specific verb+resource (upcoming crypto market resolutions, in date order, with blended probabilities) and explicitly scopes it as a crypto-only, date-ordered forward calendar. It also distinguishes itself from the generic sibling by stating it is 'Same shape as /v1/calendar, pre-filtered to crypto markets,' so an agent can tell it apart from probability_calendar without opening a schema.

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 forward calendar of crypto events an agent can position around' plus 'pre-filtered to crypto markets' and the reference to /v1/calendar give clear context for when to reach for this tool versus the general calendar. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of the other crypto siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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