DeepChamp for Agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only domain disclaimers (no guaranteed outcomes, 21+, no signup) rather than behavioral detail such as pagination, response shape, or what happens when no games exist on the date.

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 functional sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the remaining four sentences are compliance boilerplate (price, 21+, problem-gambling hotline) that consumes most of the text without helping tool selection. Proportion is skewed heavily toward legal copy.

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 sketches returned content (start times, status, plain-language rest and schedule context), which is the key missing piece. Safety and parameters are covered elsewhere, so the definition is close to complete for a simple two-parameter read 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%: the date pattern, ET timezone, yesterday-to-tomorrow window and default, plus the sport enum and default, are all documented in the schema. The description restates 'a sport and Eastern date' without adding format or edge-case guidance, 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?

The opening sentence names the resource (games) and its scope (sport + Eastern date) and enumerates returned fields (start times, status, rest/schedule context), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not distinguish itself from get_matchup_context, which is the closest sibling and would benefit from a one-line contrast.

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?

'Research intelligence (probabilities, factors, context), not winning picks' implies analytics usage, but the description never states when to call this versus get_matchup_context or under what conditions (e.g., pre-game vs live). Usage is only implied, not prescribed or excluded.

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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output is 'facts and our computed context only' and that access is free with no signup, which is modest extra context but says nothing about coverage, freshness, or what happens for a matchup not in the slate.

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 first sentence is strong and front-loaded, but it is followed by five sentences of restated legal/positioning boilerplate ('not betting advice', 'no outcomes are guaranteed', '21+ only', 'problem gambling help') that repeat the same disclaimer multiple times and bury the useful content.

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 does tell the agent roughly what comes back (each team's last result, rest, next game) and that results are factual/computed rather than predictive. Only freshness and edge-case behavior for unknown slugs are unaddressed.

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 each of the three parameters carries its own description (ET date format, slug format with example, sport enum), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that baseline.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Schedule context for one game' and enumerates the fields (last result, rest, next game), which implicitly contrasts with the season-level get_daily_slate. It is clear but never names the sibling it complements.

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?

'for one game' implies this is the per-matchup drill-down after listing a slate, but the description never states when to call this instead of get_daily_slate or what prerequisite (a slug from the slate) is needed. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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 declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description is consistent with a write/feedback operation. It adds genuinely useful context — no free text is accepted, and no charge or signup is incurred — which matters for a metered API. However, it never explains what happens to the submitted rating, whether resubmission for the same request_id overwrites or duplicates (important given idempotentHint=false), or what confirmation comes back.

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 one substantive sentence is correctly front-loaded, but everything after it is gambling-industry legal boilerplate (research-not-advice, no guaranteed outcomes, 21+, helpline number) that is irrelevant to invoking a rating tool. 'Free, never charged, no signup' is also stated twice in slightly different words. A large fraction of the description does not earn its place for the agent's decision.

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 five parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the essentials for calling the tool are present. But with no output schema, the description should say what a successful rating returns and whether ratings are mutable; it stays silent. The extensive promotional/legal copy is padding rather than the missing behavioral detail.

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 all five parameters including enum values and the required-when-not_useful rule. The description adds only two small pieces of meaning: 'with a reason code' and 'tied to its request id,' plus the 'No free text' constraint. It says nothing about tier, product_line, or how product_line relates to the request being rated.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (rate / say whether useful), the resource (a previously returned response) and the keying mechanism (request id). An agent can tell this is a feedback-submission tool, distinct from the read-oriented siblings get_daily_slate and get_matchup_context. It falls short of 5 only because the remainder of the description is legal boilerplate rather than sharpening the scope.

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 explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when not to call it, and no alternative named. The only implicit guidance is 'tied to its request id,' which hints it is a post-response action. Nothing tells an agent whether re-rating is allowed, what to do if it lacks a request id, or why it would pick this over simply not rating.

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 establish readOnlyHint=false (a mutation) and non-destructive/non-idempotent, and the description adds real value beyond them: it clarifies the request is free and never charged, requires no signup, and is research rather than betting advice with no guaranteed outcomes. This supplements rather than contradicts the structured safety profile.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and useful, but the 'Free, never charged, no signup. Price: Free, no signup.' phrase is repeated redundantly and considerable space is spent on legal/compliance boilerplate (21+, gambling help line) that could be trimmed.

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 9-parameter request-submission tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and the research-not-advice behavioral posture adequately. Minor gaps in explicit return/follow-up behavior remain but are not critical.

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% with 8 enums fully documented, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description echoes the field list and adds 'Enumerated fields only,' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides - 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 conveys a specific action - submitting a request for a missing capability - and names the fields that define the request (category, sport, market, format, urgency, note). It is clearly a distinct operation from the read-oriented siblings get_daily_slate/get_matchup_context/rate_response, though it does not explicitly reference them.

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 'what you need that is missing,' giving a rough sense of when to call it, and 'Enumerated fields only' adds a constraint. However, there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions or named alternatives, so an agent must infer the triggering situation.

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