botindex_sports_correlations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool shows 'co-performance patterns' and includes a cost ('$0.05'), but doesn't describe output format, data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only/destructive. The cost hint is useful but insufficient for comprehensive 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 brief (one sentence plus cost) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every phrase adds value: 'player correlation matrix' defines the output, 'DFS and correlated betting' specifies context, 'co-performance patterns' clarifies the analysis type, and '$0.05' indicates cost. No wasted words.

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 0 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and cost adequately. However, for a tool with no annotations and potentially complex output (a correlation matrix), it lacks details on return format, data scope, or limitations. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in behavioral context.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist.

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: generating a 'player correlation matrix' for 'DFS and correlated betting' that shows 'co-performance patterns'. It specifies the resource (player correlation matrix) and context (DFS/betting), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'botindex_hl_correlation_matrix' or 'botindex_sports_lines'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'DFS and correlated betting' as contexts, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to related sibling tools (e.g., botindex_sports_lines, botindex_sports_odds).

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