pinnacle_matchup_parlay_markets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it returns data byte-for-byte identical to pinnacle_matchup_markets, that Pinnacle does not apply correlation adjustment (so parlay price = product of legs), and that the tool is effectively redundant. It also states the exact output shape and price format. This exceeds what annotations provide and does not contradict them.

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 organized into clear, purposeful sections: the core purpose, return shape, a critical verification note, and usage prerequisite. Each sentence earns its place—there is no fluff. The important warnings are front-loaded and highlighted, making it easy for an agent to scan and act. Despite its length, it is efficient and well-structured.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the exact return shape, pricing format, the relationship to sibling tools, the prerequisite on parlayRestriction, and the auth requirement. The verification note even covers ambiguity about whether this tool adds value. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation and use.

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 only parameter, matchupId, is fully documented in the schema (coverage 100%) with a description that mentions it requires hasMarkets=true. The tool description does not add new semantic meaning about the parameter itself; it only adds context about the output and usage. Since schema already covers the parameter, a baseline of 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 it provides parlay (same-game multi) markets and prices for a matchup, and explicitly distinguishes it from pinnacle_matchup_markets by noting the return shape is identical. It also clarifies the critical nuance that there is no separate parlay price, preventing misuse. This is specific and 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 gives concrete usage guidance: it tells the agent to check the parlayRestriction field on the matchup before offering any combination, explains the three possible values and their meaning, and warns not to present this tool's output as a distinct parlay price. It also notes the tool requires hasMarkets=true via the schema, and explicitly states auth is not needed. This is far beyond typical usage guidance.

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