get_event_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: unknown symbol returns error code 7004, and include_all_outcomes=False truncates to 8 while outcomeCount always reports the full total. It also documents the price convention (0.00-1.00 = implied probability), which is real added value.

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?

Front-loaded single-line purpose followed by return contents and an Args block; every sentence carries information. The return-value paragraph is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, keeping it just below a 5.

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 2-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the definition leaves nothing an agent needs to call it correctly: symbol provenance, format, error code, and flag semantics are all present.

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 carries the full burden and does: event_symbol is explained with its source, a concrete example, the '-EVENT' id it is NOT, and the failure mode; include_all_outcomes is documented with its default, its truncation behavior, and the outcomeCount caveat. Both parameters are fully specified.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Get full details for one event contract (prediction-market event).' It enumerates what the payload contains (outcomes, YES/NO contracts, pricing, timeline, CFTC terms), so the agent can tell it apart from get_event_summary and get_event_contract_bars without opening any schema.

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?

It routes the agent to get_event_summary as the source of eventSymbol and explicitly warns against the '-EVENT' id used by get_event_contract_bars, which is strong sibling-level guidance. It stops short of stating when to prefer this tool over a summary call in prose, but the symbol-source and error behavior give clear context.

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