get_current_event

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

Annotations establish readOnly/destructive/openWorld, but the description adds non-obvious behavior the annotations cannot: windows whose resolution time has passed are skipped even though the API still lists them as unresolved, and the next window typically appears a minute or two after the prior close. This prevents an agent from grabbing a stale event.

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?

Purpose and the stale-window caveat are front-loaded, followed by the chaining guidance and a conventional Args block. It runs slightly long and the Args section restates parameter names, but each entry adds semantics absent from the schema, so the length is earned.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation isn't required, yet the description still names the key output field (eventSymbol) and how to consume it. Combined with the empty schema coverage and the wait/retry semantics, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does: series is tied to the `series` field of get_event_summary/get_event_details, category relates to get_event_categories with a performance hint, frequency's default and use case are explained, and wait_seconds' range (0–120) and default (0 = check once) are spelled out. Every parameter gains meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find the event of a recurring market that is trading right now,' then pins down the exact semantics ('the open event of the series that closes soonest'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_event_summary, get_event_details, and get_event_categories without requiring schema inspection.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent through the downstream workflow: pass eventSymbol to get_event_details for contracts and asks, then preflight_buy_event_contract to price a buy. It also states the between-windows condition and how to handle it via wait_seconds, covering the main ambiguity an agent would face.

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