Get catalyst watch (market-wide)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is a curated, ranked 'hot list' of high-impact near-term catalysts, with examples of event types. It does not fully describe output format or sorting, but for a read-only list tool the added context is solid.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core definition, followed by a clear usage directive. Every word contributes value; no filler or redundancy.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and read-only/open-world annotations, the description gives enough context for an agent to understand what the tool returns and when to use it. It could be slightly richer on return structure, but the examples and scope make it adequately complete for a list-style tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to add; per guidelines this yields a baseline of 4. The description does enhance meaning by explaining the scope and content of the returned list, which compensates for the empty schema.

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 a specific verb+resource+scope: it returns a 'cross-ticker hot list' of catalysts. It also lists concrete examples (FDA decisions, activist stakes, dilution events) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the per-ticker sibling tool stoquant_get_catalysts.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use for market-wide what's about to move discovery' and contrasts with the per-ticker tool, providing clear context for when to choose this tool over an alternative. This mirrors the high-scoring calibration example.

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