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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuinely useful behavior: results are in date order with blended probabilities, output shape matches /v1/calendar, and — importantly — the call costs $0.01 via x402, which implies a payment/auth step. It omits pagination limits, response truncation, and freshness/delay characteristics.

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 first two sentences are largely redundant restatements ('Upcoming US politics event resolutions' vs 'Upcoming US politics market resolutions in date order...'). The trailing bracketed metadata block is dense but earns its place by conveying endpoint, price, and docs.

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 annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry everything; it explains the output shape only by reference to another endpoint (/v1/calendar). Combined with fully undocumented parameters, an agent lacks what it needs to set the window correctly or understand the redundant category filter.

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 neither of the two parameters is mentioned. The required 'days' window (1-90, default 14) and the 'category' enum — which is peculiar for a tool already pre-filtered to politics — are left entirely undocumented, and the description does not compensate.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: upcoming US politics market resolutions in date order with blended probabilities. The phrase 'pre-filtered to US politics markets' distinguishes it from the generic probability_calendar sibling, though it does not explicitly name that sibling as the unfiltered alternative.

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 US politics events an agent can position around' implies forward-looking positioning use, which is reasonable context. But there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives (e.g. probability_calendar, probability_board_politics-us) to route the agent.

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