EventEdge Oracle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' clearly implies a read-only enumeration, which is helpful, but the description does not explicitly state that this operation has no side effects, require no auth, or describe return format or pagination. 'List' provides a baseline but not rich behavioral context.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The core verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning. It is an example of efficient, appropriately sized prose.

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 zero-parameter read-only list operation, the description provides sufficient information to understand the tool's purpose and invoke it. The main omission is the lack of any context about the sibling 'teasers' or what the endpoints represent, but these are not required for correct invocation of this simple 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object. The standard baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4 because there are no parameter semantics to document. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names a concrete resource ('EventEdge x402 paid signal endpoints'), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'teasers', but the resource scope is distinctive enough for most agents.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus 'teasers' or any alternative. The description simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. With a sibling tool present and no comparison, the absence of usage guidance is a notable gap.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that results are sanitized, unexpired, and that exact markets are hidden until payment, which sets accurate expectations for a read-style listing tool.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences, each adding necessary information. The core function comes first, and the payment-gating caveat is front-loaded and relevant.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool with low complexity, the description covers what the tool returns and a key limitation. It does not describe authentication or exact response shape, but these are not critical for such a simple teaser-listing 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter detail needed, and the description does not introduce any parameter-related confusion.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies a concrete resource ('sanitized, unexpired EventEdge opportunity teasers'), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'catalog', so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies the tool is for browsing teasers before payment by noting exact markets are withheld until x402 payment. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus 'catalog' or any other alternative.

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