pinnacle_matchup_parlay_markets

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

No annotations provided. Description discloses return format and that price is American odds, but lacks behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if matchupId is invalid. Adequate for a simple data retrieval tool but missing some 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?

Two sentences: first defines purpose, second provides return structure. No wasted words. Front-loaded with core purpose, then details.

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?

Simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. Description provides the return shape (array of objects with keys) but doesn't link to other tools for obtaining matchupId or explain the meaning of fields like period, limits, prices. Adequate but could be more self-contained.

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% (no param descriptions). The description does not explain what matchupId represents or how to obtain it. For a single integer parameter, adding context like 'ID from pinnacle_matchup' would be helpful.

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?

Description explicitly states verb ('returns'), resource ('parlay markets + prices for one matchup'), and scope ('related markets'). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like pinnacle_matchup_markets (regular markets) by specifying 'parlay (same-game multi)'.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives. However, the sibling context (pinnacle_matchup_markets for regular markets) and the term 'parlay' imply usage for same-game multi bets. Lacks clear guidance on when not to use or prerequisites.

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