pinnacle_matchup_markets

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

The description provides a detailed return format including fields like key, matchupId, prices, and notes that prices are American odds. No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden and adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, but the second sentence is a verbose listing of the return structure which could be more concise. The purpose is front-loaded, but brevity could be improved.

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 getter, the description covers purpose and return format. However, it omits hints about the source of matchupId (e.g., from other pinnacle tools) and does not mention error conditions or data freshness.

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 has 0% description coverage for matchId, and the description does not explain the parameter or where to obtain a valid matchupId. No additional meaning is provided beyond the bare schema definition.

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 it returns 'all straight (non-parlay) markets' with American-odds prices for a matchup and related markets. It distinguishes from parlay markets, making the tool's specific function unambiguous.

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 by noting 'non-parlay', but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like pinnacle_matchup_parlay_markets. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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