get_market_economic_calendar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't specify any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what happens if parameters are omitted. It lacks details on return format, pagination, or error handling, which are critical for a tool with parameters.

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 a single, efficient sentence ('Get economic calendar events') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'economic calendar events' entail, how results are structured, or any behavioral context. For a tool with parameters and no structured output, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('date' and 'limit'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining default values, parameter interactions, or example usage. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.

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 'Get economic calendar events' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('economic calendar events'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what type of economic events or data is retrieved, and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_market_fda_calendar' which suggests a similar calendar function for different data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as how it differs from other calendar-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'get_market_fda_calendar'). This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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