explain_handicapExplain an Asian handicap line.
Splits a quarter line into its components (e.g. -0.75 → -0.5 / -1.0) and states the
full-win / half-win / push / half-loss / full-loss conditions. ``line`` must be a multiple
of 0.25.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| line | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying the splitting logic and the constraint that the line must be a multiple of 0.25. This goes beyond the annotation and provides practical behavioral detail, though it doesn't cover edge cases or error handling.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and provides a concrete example. Every sentence is necessary and there is no redundant information.
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 simple read-only tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, the input constraint, and the output nature (states conditions). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.
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 schema only defines line as a number with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining the requirement that line be a multiple of 0.25 and giving an example of the splitting process. This adds critical meaning that the schema lacks.
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 clearly states the tool explains an Asian handicap line and details exactly what it does: splitting quarter lines and listing win/loss conditions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_lines or find_arbitrage, which have different objectives.
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 understanding a line rather than comparing or searching, which differentiates it from siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for most agents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.