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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the payment model ($0.01 via x402) and the HTTP endpoint, which is real behavioral context. However, it says nothing about pagination, result caps, ordering guarantees beyond 'date order', or what happens at the days boundary, leaving meaningful gaps for a paid data endpoint.

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 scoping statement ('pre-filtered to economics markets') and the pricing/endpoint metadata are front-loaded and easy to scan. The opening two sentences are somewhat redundant, both restating 'upcoming economics ... resolutions', but overall the text is tight and free of padding.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should do more work. It gestures at the return shape ('same shape as /v1/calendar') but defers to an external doc rather than describing fields, and it omits any parameter explanation. The endpoint and pricing details partially compensate, but it is not self-contained.

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% and the description never explains either parameter. 'days' must be inferred from 'upcoming'/'forward calendar' as a time window (default 14, max 90 are unmentioned), and the presence of a 'category' enum on a tool that is supposedly pre-filtered to economics is left completely unexplained and potentially confusing.

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+resource: upcoming economics market resolutions, in date order, with blended probabilities. It clarifies the relationship to the base calendar ('same shape as /v1/calendar, pre-filtered to economics markets'), which helps separate it from probability_calendar. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling econ_calendar, so differentiation is only partial.

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 phrase 'the forward calendar of economics events an agent can position around' implies the use case but never states when to choose this over probability_calendar or probability_board_economics, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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