Real-time chase win-probability for a T20 run chase, updated per ball. Model AUC 0.88, beats run-rate heuristic by 8.6pts. In-play betting signal. Pay per call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | Target to win (1st innings total + 1). | |
| wickets | Yes | Wickets lost (0-10). | |
| cum_runs | Yes | Runs scored so far. | |
| balls_bowled | Yes | Legal balls bowled in the chase (0-120). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'Real-time' and 'updated per ball' and model performance stats, but lacks details on limitations, data sources, or what the output represents (e.g., probability value range).
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?
Three sentences front-loaded with purpose. Second sentence adds model quality context which may not be essential for tool invocation but is not excessive.
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 4 numeric parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is adequate for a simple calculation tool but lacks details on return format, error handling, or prerequisites beyond the schema.
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%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any extra semantics beyond the schema, thus baseline score of 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?
Description clearly states it computes real-time chase win-probability for T20 cricket. However, sibling tools like hsh-cricket-chase-difficulty and hsh-cricket-first-winprob exist, and the description does not differentiate this tool from 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?
Mentions 'In-play betting signal' hinting at use case, but no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions.
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.
