macro_calendar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does add useful context: no signup/auth required, data provenance (verified Fed/BLS dates), and the inclusion of Kalshi probability data. It still does not disclose read-only nature explicitly, rate limits, caching, or timezone/date-range behavior for 'upcoming'.

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 lead is front-loaded and informative, but the sentence opens with 'Free, no signup required — Free, no signup required', a verbatim duplication that wastes space. The example path is mildly useful but not essential.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating the returned fields (dates, days-until, odds) and the covered event types. It is nearly complete — only the absence of any usage/prerequisite guidance for the filtering parameters keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (days, type) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description implies date-window and event-type filtering implicitly through 'days-until' and the event list, but adds no syntax or enum detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific resource (upcoming US macro events — FOMC, CPI, NFP) and the payload it returns (verified Fed/BLS dates, days-until, Kalshi cut/hold/hike odds), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named earnings_calendar sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. earnings_calendar or kalshi_market for the odds component), and no prerequisites beyond 'free, no signup required'. The example endpoint is descriptive, not selective.

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