eventos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses data provenance (events declared by B3 vs. found by the provider), the presence of a declared factor and a computed `efeito_liquido_do_dia`, and the authentication requirement per ticker. It stops short of describing error behavior, rate limits, or that the call is a read-only lookup, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the returned event types before the provenance and net-effect details. It is dense with domain jargon but every clause (source, factor, `efeito_liquido_do_dia` semantics, auth) adds real information rather than padding.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema retrieval tool, the description adequately conveys what the response contains (event types, source, declared factor, net daily effect) and what is needed to call it. The only remaining gap is the concrete shape of returned records, which is implied but not spelled out.

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 must compensate. It fully clarifies `chave_api` (only needed for non-WEGE3 tickers), which is the non-obvious parameter, but says nothing about `ticker` format beyond the implicit WEGE3 example. That is a real gap at this coverage level, keeping it at a baseline-plus rather than a 4 or 5.

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 names a specific resource — corporate events (splits, reverse splits, bonuses, spin-offs) for a single company — so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with adjacent siblings like `dividendos`, but the resource is concrete enough to distinguish it in practice.

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 gives one real precondition (WEGE3 is open, all other tickers require `chave_api`), which is actionable usage guidance. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus siblings such as `dividendos` or `reapresentacoes`, so the routing guidance is only partial.

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