economic_calendarRetrieve scheduled US economic releases like CPI, NFP, FOMC and GDP, with consensus and actual values once published, filtered by date range or importance.
Scheduled US releases (CPI, NFP, FOMC, GDP and more) with consensus and actuals once published.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| importance | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does 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. It reveals that actuals appear 'once published' (implying some events may lack actuals), but says nothing about data freshness, update frequency, pagination, timezone handling, or rate limits. For a time-sensitive calendar tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence with zero waste. The parenthetical examples are front-loaded and immediately informative. Nothing extraneous.
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 3-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits parameter formats, date semantics, importance filtering behavior, and whether historical vs. upcoming events are returned. An agent has insufficient information to invoke this correctly without trial and error.
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 but does not. It doesn't explain that 'from' and 'to' are date bounds (format, maxLength 10 suggests YYYY-MM-DD but this is unstated), nor what 'importance' filters. Three undocumented parameters with no textual clarification leave the agent guessing about 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?
States a specific resource (US economic calendar) with concrete examples of the releases it covers (CPI, NFP, FOMC, GDP). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like corporate_events, macro_series, or policy_rates, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool. The purpose is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like macro_series or policy_rates. The description doesn't state whether it's for historical data, forward-looking schedules, or both. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.