pinnacle_matchup

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses what is returned (participants, league, etc.) but does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is straightforward but minimally transparent.

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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and return structure. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-structured with front-loaded purpose.

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 simplicity (single ID parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and return fields. It lacks details on error conditions, data freshness, or field interpretation (e.g., state values), but overall it provides sufficient context for a basic lookup 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'matchupId' implicitly by context but does not explain what constitutes a valid matchupId or where to obtain it (e.g., from other pinnacle tools). The description adds little meaning beyond the schema.

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 returned fields (participants, league, periods, etc.). The name 'pinnacle_matchup' combined with the description distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'pinnacle_league_matchups' (list matchups) and 'pinnacle_matchup_markets' (betting markets), as it focuses on a single matchup's detail.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single matchup's details by providing a matchupId, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pinnacle_league_matchups for listing or pinnacle_matchup_markets for markets. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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