pinnacle_carousel

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds the return shape (array of objects with id, league, participants, startTime, hasMarkets, hasLive) and explicitly notes that no authentication is needed, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one line for return format, and one for auth. All information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only endpoint, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, the data shape, scope, and authentication requirements. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, so no additional behavioral disclosure is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, and the description correctly does not fabricate parameter details.

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 identifies the tool as returning a featured matchups carousel across all sports, specifically for homepage highlights. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pinnacle_sport_matchups or pinnacle_league_matchups by indicating it is a curated, cross-sport highlight feed.

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 a clear use case (homepage highlights) and scope (all sports), but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. Still, the 'homepage highlights' context gives adequate guidance for selecting this tool.

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