io.github.benjamin-di/earnings-watch

Earnings Calendar Ack

earnings_calendar_ack

Idempotent

Record confirmed external calendar operations for earnings events and reject stale or altered plans before they diverge from the current watchlist state.

Instructions

R1. Record confirmed external operations; reject stale or altered plans.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "handle": "<handle>",
      "results": "<results>"
    },
    "name": "earnings_calendar_ack"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`handle`	Yes
`results`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

C2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds a rejection rule for stale or altered plans, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not explain what 'record' entails, what gets stored, or how rejection is surfaced. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is short, but the cryptic 'R1.' prefix and abstract phrasing make it under-specified rather than concise. For a two-parameter write tool, this length is insufficient and not front-loaded with actionable information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although an output schema exists, the tool has two required parameters with zero schema descriptions, and the description provides no mapping to 'handle' or 'results'. It also fails to connect the rejection rule to the sibling earnings_calendar_plan, leaving the agent unable to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the two parameters. It does not mention 'handle' or 'results' at all, leaving the agent with no semantic anchor for either required field.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a vague object ('external operations') and never mentions earnings, calendars, or plans in a way that connects to the tool name. An agent cannot confidently distinguish this from siblings like earnings_calendar_plan or earnings_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a single condition ('reject stale or altered plans'), but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to the sibling tools. The agent must infer that this acknowledges plans, and nothing says when to call this vs earnings_calendar_plan.

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

Deploy Server