Stock Events

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: news is sentiment-tagged, corporate actions include ex-date and LTP, and filings are sourced from ScanX and Screener with a detailed doc-type list and richer date metadata. This gives the agent a clear picture of what the tool returns.

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 well-structured with a one-sentence summary followed by a compact bullet-like list, and the type details are front-loaded and scannable. The 'AFTER using this tool' paragraph is extra agent workflow guidance rather than tool behavior, which slightly dilutes focus, but it does not make the description bloated.

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 multi-type tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned content for each type reasonably well. However, it does not tell the agent how to choose between this tool and the overlapping siblings, and it does not clarify pagination or how the limit parameter interacts with different event types.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the bare enum by explaining what each type value returns: news includes sentiment and source URL, corporate_actions includes dividends/splits/ex-date, and filings enumerates specific document types. This is more than the schema provides, especially for the type parameter.

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 states a specific action ('Get stock events') and enumerates the three event types with concrete examples, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like get_stock_news, get_corporate_actions, or list_company_documents, so it misses the full sibling-differentiation bar.

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 says 'Filter by type to get only what you need,' which gives a basic selection hint, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_stock_news or get_corporate_actions. The 'AFTER using this tool' paragraph advises post-call actions but provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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