Market data: earnings calendar and history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the data is dual-sourced, Finviz supplies detailed tables while TradingView confirms the timestamp, and the two dates are reconciled and reported. It omits failure behavior when one source is unavailable, and any rate-limit or caching traits.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first line, then source roles, then args/returns. The docstring-style 'Args:'/'Returns:' blocks partly duplicate structured fields, but the prose is tight with no wasted sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so describing return fields is optional (and here partly redundant), and with one simple parameter the definition covers what the agent needs to call it correctly. What's missing is edge-case behavior such as tickers with no scheduled earnings.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate; it only states 'symbol: Ticker', which clarifies the value is a ticker rather than an internal ID but gives no format examples, exchange prefix, or case rules.

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 and scope: earnings calendar plus earnings history for a single ticker, with named upstream sources (Finviz tables, TradingView scanner). It is unambiguous enough to separate from stock_quote or stock_news, though it never explicitly names a sibling it is not.

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 by the content ('earnings calendar and history'): an agent can infer this is the tool for earnings dates and reported quarters, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as stock_news for earnings coverage.

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