get_event_impact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the output is 'pre/post event vol stats across multiple historical occurrences,' but does not detail how many occurrences, the date range, error handling, or any other behavioral traits that would help an agent understand what to expect.

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?

The description is concise with a clear first sentence and a bullet-like list of examples. Every line serves a purpose, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit sections for inputs and outputs.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic function, inputs, and output. It is adequate but omits details like data source, historical depth, and potential limitations, which would be needed for full contextual completeness.

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?

The input schema lacks descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds value by listing example event names and products, which clarifies valid inputs. However, it does not specify format constraints like case sensitivity or exact string matching, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing historical volatility impact of a specific economic event. It provides concrete examples of events (CPI, FOMC, NFP, etc.) and products (ES, NQ, MES, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_calendar or get_direction.

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?

The description implies usage for analyzing event volatility, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The list of examples gives some context, but lacks explicit decision-making cues.

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