BetsBeats

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

The readOnlyHint already establishes safety, and the description adds that this is pure computation with no data lookup, plus compliance constraints. It does not explain edge cases or response behavior, but it adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 purpose and formulas are front-loaded, and the text is generally efficient. The legal disclaimers add length but are likely compliance-required rather than purely redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description never explicitly states what the tool returns, such as all equivalent formats or a single converted value. The formulas partially compensate, but return behavior remains somewhat ambiguous.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds accepted representation details such as probability as 0.4 or 40% and provides conversion formulas beyond the schema examples.

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 verb and resource: convert betting odds, and enumerates the four supported formats. The phrase 'pure math, no data lookup' helps distinguish it from data-retrieval 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?

Usage is implied by the conversion purpose and the 'pure math, no data lookup' note, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives such as expected_value or parlay_payout.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavior by disclosing the computation (EV, break-even probability, edge) and stressing that the probability is user-supplied rather than a model prediction. It does not describe how results are presented, how fractional/American inputs are normalized, or edge cases like p=0/100, leaving some behavioral gaps for a calculator.

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 purpose and formula are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with the probability-is-your-input caveat immediately after. The trailing legal/21+ disclaimers consume roughly half the text but are plausibly required compliance language rather than 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 read-only, four-parameter calculation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the formulas needed to anticipate return values (EV, break-even, edge) and clarifies the meaning of the one ambiguous input. Only the output shape and odds-format handling remain unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description earns an extra point by tying parameters together in formulas: stake in 'EV = stake * (p*(decimal-1) - (1-p))', p in 'break-even probability = 1/decimal' and 'edge = p - break-even'. That clarifies what each input contributes to the output beyond the schema's per-field text.

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 states a specific computation ('Expected value of a wager from odds and your own win probability') and even spells out the formula, so the resource and operation are unambiguous. It never names a sibling, but the EV/break-even/edge framing clearly separates it from convert_odds and parlay_payout on inspection.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you have odds plus an estimated win probability and want EV. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing to convert_odds or parlay_payout, and no stated prerequisites beyond the 21+ notice.

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?

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the bar is lower; the description adds that the record is public and mirrors the results page exactly, and defines the 'void' term. The remaining sentences (21+, no wins promised, does not take bets) are legal disclaimers rather than invocation-relevant behavior such as scope, freshness, or aggregation level.

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 useful content is one front-loaded sentence; the following three sentences are compliance boilerplate that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. Roughly half the description is spent on text that earns no place in a tool definition.

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 output schema and no parameters, the description does the right thing by describing the returned fields, which is necessary here. But it leaves unclear whether this is a single aggregate record or per-pick history, and gives no hint about refresh cadence or how it differs from get_results.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing parameter-related the description needs to compensate for. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty object confirms no input is required.

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 names the resource and enumerates its contents (wins, losses, voids, current streak, date range) and clarifies that a void is a push or no pick, so an agent knows what data comes back. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling get_results, which by name appears to return overlapping results 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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_results or verify_pick, and no preconditions or exclusions. The only usage-adjacent text is the 21+ / entertainment disclaimer, which does not help an agent choose between tools.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds non-obvious behavior — results exist only for settled, publicly visible days, so unsettled dates yield nothing. The remaining sentences are compliance boilerplate (21+, no guaranteed wins) rather than behavior, which adds little for the agent.

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?

Front-loaded with the useful scope and payload in the first two sentences, which is good. The trailing 21+/no-wins/no-bets disclaimers consume roughly a third of the text without helping an agent decide or invoke correctly.

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 output schema, the description usefully lists the returned fields (commitment hashes, selections, odds, results) and the settled/public constraint. Missing only edge-case detail such as what an unsettled or out-of-range date returns.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'date' parameter is documented with the same YYYY-MM-DD format the description repeats. No additional semantics (timezone, what constitutes a valid day) are added beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: returns settled picks/results for a single day, and enumerates the payload (main pick, extras, commitment hashes, selections, odds, results). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_record or verify_pick, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 constraint 'Only days that are already settled and public are returned' implicitly tells the agent this is for post-hoc lookup, not live picks, which is useful guidance. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus get_record, verify_pick or expected_value, leaving routing to inference.

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?

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the formula, the assumption that legs are independent and all win, and the 21+ entertainment disclaimer. It does not describe the exact response structure or error behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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 front-loaded with the core payout formula and constraint, then follows with assumptions and disclaimers. It is dense but appropriately sized; the legal/entertainment disclaimer is relevant but slightly lengthens an otherwise compact definition.

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 readOnly annotation, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly. It defines the computed outputs (payout, profit, implied probability) and assumptions, though it does not specify the exact response shape or error handling.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces the 2 to 20 leg constraint and clarifies that decimal odds are multiplied, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: computing the payout of a parlay with 2 to 20 legs. It clearly defines the calculation, including combined odds and implied probability. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as convert_odds or expected_value, which keeps it from 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 usage is implied by 'Payout of a parlay ... that all win' and the 2 to 20 leg constraint, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like convert_odds or expected_value. No when-not conditions are provided.

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?

Despite readOnlyHint=true, the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: pre-settlement versus post-settlement responses, server-side SHA-256 recomputation, matches=true/false, result, and verify_url. It also discloses responsible-use constraints, which is unusually complete for a read-only verification 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 front-loaded with the core verification behavior and then explains settlement-dependent returns. The legal disclaimer is relevant but slightly long; overall it remains purposeful and readable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does: sealed_at and kickoff_at before settlement, plus preimage, match status, result, and verify_url after settlement. An agent has enough information to call and interpret the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the single hash parameter is already documented as 64 hex characters or a unique prefix of at least 16. The description repeats the same format details rather than adding new parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: verify a sealed BetsBeats pick from its SHA-256 commitment hash. It also clarifies accepted hash formats, which is more specific than the tool name alone and distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools.

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 clearly describes the two usage contexts: before settlement it only confirms the hash exists, and after settlement it returns the revealed preimage and verification result. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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