get_splits_calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are returned as a table of splits with ratios, but gives no pagination or coverage caveats for what is an open-world query, so it adds only modest value.

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 one-line purpose followed by compact Args and Returns sections. Every line earns its place, though the Args/Returns formatting is slightly redundant given structured fields exist.

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 an output schema present, the return description is not strictly needed, and parameters are adequately explained. What is missing is the routing context: when an agent should pick this over get_stock_splits, get_corporate_actions, or get_ipo_calendar.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does define both parameters semantically: 'days' as a look-ahead window and 'limit' as a max-count cap, which is exactly the missing information. Defaults repeat the schema, but the semantic gloss is genuinely additive.

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 ('Get upcoming stock splits') with a temporal scope ('upcoming') that separates it from the historical sibling get_stock_splits. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate from get_stock_splits, get_corporate_actions, or get_ipo_calendar, leaving sibling discrimination to inference.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many calendar/split/action siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The word 'upcoming' implies a forward-looking use case but nothing is made explicit.

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