pointsbet_preprice_multis

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying the return structure and explicitly stating that no authentication is needed. It also notes the constraint of one pre-built multi per event, which clarifies expected output size. The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints, so the bar is lower; this description meets it.

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 compact, with only three short segments: purpose, return format, and auth. Every line adds value, and the most critical information (what it does) is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with good annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, return shape, and auth. However, it omits details about the structure of the 'preBuilt legs' and does not clarify the meaning of '5 for $25', leaving minor ambiguity.

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 accepts zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. According to the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description further confirms no parameters are needed.

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 providing pre-priced '5 for $25' multi suggestions, with a specific scope of one pre-built multi per featured event. The 'Returns' line details the output structure, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from other PointsBet tools such as racecards or in-play events.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions featured events but does not state selection criteria, intended use cases, or when to call other PointsBet tools like pointsbet_event or pointsbet_sport_featured_events.

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