get_calibration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It successfully discloses what metrics are returned (Brier score, hit rates, total signals), but omits operational details like read-only safety, rate limits, or caching behavior that would help an agent understand invocation constraints.

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?

Efficiently structured with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a clear Args section. No redundant text; every sentence earns its place.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description appropriately omits detailed return value explanations. All parameters are documented. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly state this is a safe read-only operation, though implied by the verb 'Get'.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args section comprehensively documents all 3 parameters with examples (e.g., 'crypto', 'politics') and valid values (e.g., '7d', '30d', 'shadow', 'live'), fully compensating for the schema deficiency.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves 'signal accuracy and calibration metrics' with specific examples (Brier score, hit rates). The mention of Brier score helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_performance or get_analysis, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus get_performance or get_analysis, nor when to prefer 'shadow' vs 'live' mode. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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