pinnacle_matchup_parlay_markets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the exact return structure (array of market objects with key fields), that prices are American odds, and that no authentication is required. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand expected output.

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 plus a compact return-format preview. It front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence provides useful information (scope, return shape, odds format, auth). No wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description includes the return structure, odds format, and auth requirement, which are the key details an agent needs. It doesn't explain 'related markets' in depth, but for a single-parameter read-only tool, this is sufficient.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for matchupId, including its type, requirement, and the note that the matchup must have hasMarkets=true. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score 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 identifies the tool as returning parlay (same-game multi) markets and prices for a specific matchup and its related markets, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pinnacle_matchup_markets. The verb 'Returns' is specific and the resource (matchup's parlay markets) is 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 the tool is for parlay markets specifically, giving clear context for when to use it (when parlay/same-game multi data is needed). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools like pinnacle_matchup_markets for non-parlay markets, so it falls short of full guidance.

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