pointsbet_preprice_multis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the return format and does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The lack of such disclosure leaves uncertainty.

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, consisting of two sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence conveys the core purpose, and the second provides a return structure example. Every part earns its place.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns and its nature. It could mention the frequency or update cadence, but the provided information is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4, and the description meets that without requiring further elaboration.

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 returns 'Pre-priced '5 for $25' multi suggestions (one pre-built multi per featured event)' and provides a sample return structure, effectively communicating its purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools which cover other sports, markets, or racing functions.

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 retrieving pre-priced multis but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or context for selection. The purpose is clear enough that usage is intuitive, but guidance is lacking.

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