get_company_events

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a read operation ('Get') and a time scope ('upcoming and recent'), which is useful. But it does not explain what event types are included, what 'recent' means, or how results are ordered or filtered.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler; the verb and temporal scope are front-loaded and every word earns its place. It is concise without being padded, though it borders on under-specification.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers the basic purpose and is a minimum-viable definition. However, the absence of annotations, parameter documentation, and event-type definition leaves gaps an agent would need to resolve before or after calling it.

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 mentions the required 'ticker' parameter. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but its format (e.g., 'AAPL' vs. exchange-qualified symbols) is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 verb and resource ('Get upcoming and recent company events'), and the temporal scope ('upcoming and recent') adds useful precision. It is the only sibling tool dealing with events, so an agent can distinguish it from the financial-statement and DCF tools. However, it does not define what counts as an 'event' (earnings call, dividend, conference), so differentiation is clear but not explicit.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The intended use case is only implied by the word 'events' in contrast to the financial-statement siblings, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit alternative references.

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