get_financial_events

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

The description implies a read operation via the '[read]' tag and the nature of 'views,' but with no annotations provided, it lacks explicit disclosure of safety (e.g., no mutation conveyed). It also does not mention prerequisites, rate limits, or data sensitivity.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and key deployment detail, with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits important context such as the structure of the fee breakdown, pagination behavior, or any error conditions. The brief purpose alone is insufficient for a full understanding.

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?

All 7 parameters are fully described in the input schema with clear descriptions, so the tool description adds no extra value beyond the schema. The baseline score applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 it retrieves financial event fee breakdown and profitability views, with a '[Finance / read]' tag indicating purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_settlement_economics or get_profitability_review, leaving some ambiguity.

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 notes the tool is 'Hosted endpoint only; this local stdio server is an introspection stub,' which tells the agent it won't work locally but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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