fmp_earnings_calendar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the function and date format, but does not disclose anything about safety (read-only), side effects, output structure, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. For a simple read operation it is minimally transparent but lacks depth beyond the basic purpose.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and date format. There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it highly efficient and well-structured for agent comprehension.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks specifics such as the market(s) covered (e.g., US only), whether the dates are inclusive, or any pagination behavior. While the output schema likely covers some details, the description alone feels incomplete for a production agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does provide the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) which clarifies the expected format for from_date and to_date, adding value over the schema's bare string type. However, it does not explain inclusive/exclusive boundaries, required vs optional, or semantics beyond the obvious start/end. This is adequate but minimal.

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 tool provides a 'Market-wide earnings calendar over a date range', which is specific about scope and data type. It distinguishes from likely sibling tools like 'fmp_earnings' by implying market-wide rather than per-ticker, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb is implied ('calendar' as a noun), but the meaning is unambiguous.

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 description includes a clear context (market-wide earnings over a date range) which implies when to use it, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. There is no exclusion or contrast with other earnings-related tools, so usage indication is only implicit.

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