finnhub_calendar_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only lists operations and their nominal purposes; it does not mention return format, pagination, rate limits, authentication, or any side effects. This is a minimal read-oriented description but lacks meaningful behavioral context.

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 appropriately concise: a one-line summary followed by a clean bulleted list of operations. Every line earns its place, and the structure front-loads the tool's core purpose before detailing sub-commands. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

This is a multi-operation tool with five parameters and no annotations, yet the description provides no operation-specific usage details, parameter mapping, or prerequisites. The presence of an output schema helps some, but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke operations with correct parameters.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for parameters like symbol, project, from_date, to_date, or operation. It doesn't say which parameters apply to which calendar operation or what formats are expected. The description adds zero semantic value over the raw parameter names.

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 the tool provides IPO, earnings, economic, and FDA calendar data, and each operation uses a specific verb ('Get') with a distinct resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like finnhub_stock_market_data or finnhub_news_sentiment by enumerating unique calendar-focused resources.

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 operation list implies when to use each sub-operation (e.g., get_ipo_calendar for IPOs), but the description never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so the guidance is only implicit.

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