List scheduled catalysts within a chosen lookahead window and filter by event type, returning source details and coverage limits for readiness assessment.
List curated upcoming catalysts with exact source and coverage limitations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | No | ||
| event_types | No | ||
| lookahead_days | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that results are 'curated' and have 'coverage limitations,' but does not specify what those limitations are, whether results are exhaustive, or any other operational constraints.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant text. The brevity is efficient, though it leaves important detail unspecified.
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 return values need not be described. However, with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the definition is missing too much needed context for correct invocation, especially around filtering and lookahead behavior.
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 does not mention any of the three parameters (as_of, event_types, lookahead_days). The parameter names alone do not fully convey accepted formats or filtering behavior.
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 specific verb and resource ('List ... upcoming catalysts'), so the basic operation is clear. It does not explain how it differs from sibling tools such as event_readiness or assess_event.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The listing intent is implied by the name and description, but the agent must infer the usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.