pinnacle_matchup_markets

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent, so the description adds value by clarifying the return format (array of objects with fields), price type (American odds), and stating no auth needed. This goes beyond the annotations with useful behavioral context.

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 three sentences: purpose, return shape, auth requirement. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with good annotations, the description includes the essential return structure and auth requirement. It does not elaborate on what 'related markets' includes, but the schema supplies the prerequisite, making the description reasonably complete.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single required parameter matchupId, including the 'hasMarkets=true' prerequisite. The description adds no extra parameter semantics; it only mentions matchupId as part of the return shape, so the schema carries the full burden.

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 returns all straight (non-parlay) markets with American-odds prices for a matchup and its related markets. The verb 'returns' and resource 'markets' are specific, and the phrase 'non-parlay' distinguishes it from sibling tools like parlay markets.

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 straight markets via 'non-parlay' and includes context about the scope (one matchup + related markets), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use. The exclusion of parlays is a strong hint, but not a fully explicit guideline.

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