botindex_dfs_optimizer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a cost ('$0.10'), which is useful context about pricing, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether it's a read-only or mutation operation, what permissions or inputs are needed beyond the schema, how lineups are returned (e.g., format, pagination), or any rate limits. For an optimizer tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and adding cost information in the second. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys key details without unnecessary elaboration. It could be slightly improved by integrating the cost into the main sentence, but overall it's well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (an optimizer with financial and sports inputs), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'optimized lineups' entail (e.g., number of lineups, criteria), how correlations are handled, or the return format. The cost mention adds some context, but overall, it fails to provide sufficient information for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior and outputs.

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 ('budget' and 'sport') adequately. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters—it doesn't explain expected budget ranges, sport options, or how they influence optimization. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose: 'Correlation-adjusted DFS lineup optimizer. Returns optimized lineups accounting for player correlations.' It specifies the verb ('optimizer'), resource ('DFS lineups'), and key feature ('accounting for player correlations'), which distinguishes it from most siblings focused on crypto, sports odds, or other domains. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'botindex_sports_correlations' or other sports-related tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a cost ('$0.10'), which implies a paid service, but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or recommend other tools for different scenarios. Without any when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, it offers minimal usage direction.

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