Event read

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses price ($0.09 USDC per call, x402 on Base), that it settles only on success, and a wide 10–180 s latency band the agent must plan around. It also flags the response as untrusted data and not financial advice, a security-relevant trait the readOnly/openWorld hints do not convey.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then cost, latency, and the untrusted-data caveat. No filler; the compliance disclaimer is short and earns its place by setting expectations about the output.

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?

For a single-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers cost, settlement condition, latency, and safety posture, which is what an agent needs before paying for a call. It stops short of characterizing the response shape or what 'expected move' quantifies, leaving some ambiguity about the output.

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 the schema already documents the single 'asset' parameter with an example ('One ticker, e.g. BTC'). The description only restates 'one asset' and adds no ticker format, case, or exchange-prefix guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Live read on market events') plus the concrete payload ('scheduled catalysts, risk events, expected move') and scopes it to one asset. An agent can tell it is the per-asset event/risk read, though it never contrasts itself with near-neighbors like vedetta_news-read, vedetta_pulse, or vedetta_snapshot.

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 context is implied by 'impacting one asset' and 'live read', which suggests a point-in-time query for a single ticker's catalysts. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no sibling is named as an alternative, so the agent must infer routing from names alone.

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