pinnacle_matchup

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying 'Auth: none needed' and the exact return shape, which is particularly useful since there is no output schema. It doesn't contradict 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: a one-sentence summary, a return structure line, and an auth line. Every sentence earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

With a single well-documented parameter, strong annotations, and a detailed return shape in the description, the tool is well-covered. The only minor gap is that 'periods' is shown as '[...]' without further detail, but overall the description is adequate for a simple single-resource read tool.

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 already fully explains the parameter: 'Matchup id (from any matchups feed). Required — part of the URL path.' The description doesn't add extra meaning beyond implying the singular matchup context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'One matchup's detail' and lists the key fields returned, conveying a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling list/matchup tools by emphasizing singularity, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: you must have a matchupId 'from any matchups feed' as stated in the parameter description, and this tool returns the basic detail of that matchup. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this instead of related tools like pinnacle_matchup_markets or pinnacle_matchup_related.

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