symbol_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does add valuable details: earnings are read from the SEC filing itself and each has an accession number. However, it does not disclose return structure, sorting, event date semantics, or behavior when no events exist, which an agent would need to interpret the results reliably.

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 compact, front-loaded, and every clause earns its place. It packs scope, event types, source, parameter constraints, and intended use into two short sentences with no filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the core information is present: what events are returned, their source, and the time window. However, there is no output schema and the description does not specify the output shape or how the events are dated, so an agent still has to guess at some response details.

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 compensate. It does so for `days` by stating the valid range (30-3650) and default (400), and it clarifies that `symbol` refers to a single company. It does not detail symbol format, but otherwise the parameter semantics are well covered.

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 defines the tool's resource and scope precisely: dated events for one company over a trailing window, specifically earnings releases (with accession numbers), dividends, and splits. It also frames the intended use case ('What to line a price series up against'), which clearly differentiates it from broad market or calendar tools among its siblings.

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 gives a clear context for when to use this tool: when you need a single company's dated events over a historical window, especially for aligning a price series. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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