pinnacle_matchup_related

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 known. The description adds value by providing the return format ('Returns: [{id, type, participants:[{name}], hasMarkets}]') and stating 'Auth: none needed', which are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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 exceptionally concise: one sentence for the core purpose, plus a minimal return type and auth statement. Every word carries meaning, with no filler or repetition.

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 lookup tool with one required parameter and no output schema in the structured data, the description provides enough context: it explains the relationship (same event's sub-matchups/alternative lines) and gives an inline return structure. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%—the only parameter 'matchupId' is already well-described in the schema as 'Matchup id. Required — part of the URL path.' The description text does not add additional meaning for this parameter beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 states the tool's function: 'Matchups related to one matchup' with elaboration as 'the same event's sub-matchups / alternative lines'. It identifies the specific resource (related matchups) and differentiates from sibling tools like pinnacle_matchup (single matchup) and pinnacle_matchup_markets (markets for a matchup).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need matchups related to a given matchup within the same event, specifically sub-matchups or alternative lines. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the relationship definition implies the use case and helps avoid using other matchup tools.

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