Rey Fortuno

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the returned fields (categoría, descripción, link), which matters because no output schema exists, but it says nothing about result limits or pagination for a catalog listing.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then appends the filter capability and return fields. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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, zero-required-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and filtering sufficiently. Remaining gaps (pagination, behavior on empty results) are minor for this complexity level.

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 parameter carries its own description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the categoria/buscar filters and never mentions the idioma enum, adding no syntax or format detail 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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Lista los juegos disponibles en Rey Fortuno') with concrete category examples (slots, mesas, crash, deportes) and a statement of what each result contains. Nothing overlaps with the siblings prode or verificar-jugada, so the agent can route to it unambiguously.

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?

'Filtro opcional por categoría o texto' tells the agent that filters are optional and which ones exist, giving clear context for when to pass them. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming alternatives, though the siblings are unrelated enough that exclusions add little.

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=true annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the description only needs to add behavioral detail. It does disclose the branching default behavior (no `deporte` returns the sport list instead of matches), which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or how odds are structured beyond '1X2/ganador'.

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?

Two short sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second front-loads the default-mode caveat. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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, three-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers both return shapes (sports list vs. matches with odds) and the filter axes. What is missing is any note on result size/pagination or the relationship to the sibling tools.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the sport ids and the 1-100 limit. The description mostly restates the `deporte` default behavior and adds only the odds-format hint. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 concrete resource and payload: a sports betting predictions board with bettable matches and their 1X2/winner odds, plus the fallback behavior when no `deporte` is given. The name 'prode' alone is opaque, so the description does the essential disambiguation work. It does not explicitly contrast with the siblings `juegos` and `verificar-jugada`, 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?

It gives a concrete call pattern: invoke with no `deporte` to first discover which sports have matches, then presumably filter. That is actionable usage context rather than mere implication. There is no statement of when to prefer this over `verificar-jugada` or `juegos`, so no exclusions are documented.

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 this as read-only and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it states that the tool checks whether SHA-256(server seed) matches the published hash and returns random floats in [0,1). It does not describe what happens when the hash does not match, which keeps it below 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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose first and then adds the verification and derivation details. Every clause earns its place by explaining what is checked and what is returned.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description correctly explains the return values (floats in [0,1)) and the verification behavior. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could say more about failure behavior or what 'cursor' refers to.

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 a baseline of 3 applies. The description still adds value by explaining that the HMAC input is built from 'cliente:nonce:cursor' and that the tool returns random numbers, which clarifies how 'semilla_cliente', 'nonce', and the returned floats relate to one another. Minor gap: it mentions a 'cursor' that is not a named parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Verifica una jugada provably fair') and explains the underlying mechanism (SHA-256 server-seed check plus HMAC-derived random floats). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools 'juegos' and 'prode', but the purpose is otherwise unambiguous.

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: an agent can infer this is for verifying a completed 'provably fair' play after the server seed has been revealed. The description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not mention any alternative tool or preconditions.

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