stock_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It merely states 'Gets' without mentioning any side effects, error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The minimal description fails to adequately inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise with one sentence plus a brief argument description. Every word adds value and there is no unnecessary text.

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?

Given that an output schema exists but is not provided to the evaluator, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it fails to address the broad set of sibling tools (e.g., dividend, earnings, news tools) and does not specify what types of corporate events are included. The context is partially covered but not fully.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the missing schema documentation. It adds 'Stock ticker symbol (e.g., "AAPL")', which provides context and an example, making it more useful than the bare schema. However, it does not cover all potential nuances of the single parameter.

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 'Gets corporate events for a stock (for owned positions)', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'stock_earnings' or 'stock_splits' by focusing on corporate events for owned positions.

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 implies usage when the user owns the stock and needs corporate events, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for specific event types like earnings or splits.

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