Event-Risk Gate ($0.01)

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld/not-idempotent, so the description carries the real behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses cost ($0.01 USDC on Base), the payment path (x402 from X402_PRIVATE_KEY), that 4xx/5xx failures are not billed, and that the underlying data is US public-domain agency data. Cost and failure-billing semantics are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express, and nothing here contradicts the hints.

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?

Every clause carries information, but the layout is telegraphic fragments and leads with pricing rather than the tool's purpose, so the agent must read several sentences before learning what it does. The closing 'Informational only, not investment advice' is defensible boilerplate but sits where a functional summary would be more useful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of return-value information, and it gives only a name ('safeToTrade verdict') without saying whether that is a boolean, an enum, or a structured payload, nor how to interpret it alongside the release time. Payment, data provenance, and billing are well covered, so the gap is confined to result interpretation.

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% for the single 'window' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'within a minutes window' loosely echoes the look-ahead concept but adds no format, default, or interpretation detail beyond the schema's 1-240 range and default 30.

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 names a concrete output pair: a safeToTrade verdict and the next high-impact US release (CPI/NFP/PPI, FOMC, Treasury auctions) within a minute window. That is specific enough for an agent to know what it gets back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from plausible siblings like pre_trade_check or session_brief, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: the combination of a trade verdict and an upcoming macro release signals 'check this before trading around US data.' There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no routing to an alternative for non-event or non-US checks. An agent can guess the context but is not told it.

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