finnhub_market_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names the three operations but does not explain how symbol, project, or exchange affect each operation, whether calls are read-only, or what response/error behavior to expect. This is minimal 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 short, front-loaded, and uses a clean list format for operations. It contains no filler, though the opening summary and the operation list are slightly redundant.

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 dispatcher with four parameters and an output schema, but the description does not map operations to required or relevant parameters, nor does it clarify how it relates to sibling tools like finnhub_calendar_data. The operation list provides a starting point but leaves crucial invocation details unspecified.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only partially compensates by enumerating valid values for the operation parameter. The roles of symbol, exchange, and project are never explained, leaving the agent without enough meaning to reliably pass parameters.

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 identifies the tool's domain as 'Market holidays, analyst upgrades/downgrades, and M&A activity' and lists concrete operations with verbs like 'Get market holiday schedule.' It is specific about what the tool does but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools such as finnhub_calendar_data.

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., use get_upgrade_downgrade for analyst rating changes), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusion criteria. Usage is implied rather than explicitly directed.

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