pinnacle_sport_matchups_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It lacks information on data limits, freshness, authorization, or side effects. The tool likely returns a large array, but pagination or size limits are not mentioned.

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 concise: three sentences covering purpose, return format, and an example. It avoids unnecessary words. However, the return format could be more structured or referenced externally.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and the tool's simplicity, the description should explain how to obtain valid sportId values and clarify the response structure. The current description only partially addresses the return format, missing details like pagination or data completeness.

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, sportId, receives no explanation in the description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds no meaning. The agent is left guessing what sportId values correspond to which sports.

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 that it returns all matchups for one sport, explicitly contrasting with 'highlighted' matchups. It provides a return format and an example, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 indicates when to use this tool ('want all matchups') and implies when not to ('not just highlighted'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like pinnacle_sport_matchups or pinnacle_league_matchups, which would strengthen guidance.

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