sportsbet_sgm_price

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

Goes far beyond the annotations: describes the exact return shape, explains why the price is NOT the product of legs due to correlation adjustment, flags quoteId as short-lived and non-cacheable, documents specific 400 error codes and their causes, and notes auth requirements. This gives the agent a strong behavioral model beyond readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints.

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 long but every section earns its place: purpose, return format, fractional-price conversion, correlation adjustment, quote freshness, error handling, a concrete example, and auth. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured so critical caveats are not buried.

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 no output schema, the description compensates fully by documenting the return structure, example values, error codes, quote lifecycle, and auth. There are no significant gaps an agent would need to guess to call this tool 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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed 'externalId vs id' guidance. The description adds a complete worked example with real AFL IDs and reinforces the 'at least two legs from the same event' constraint, which adds usable semantic context beyond the schema alone.

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?

States a specific action ('PRICE A SAME GAME MULTI'), the exact input (legs from one event), and the output (combined price). Explicitly differentiates itself: 'The only tool here that prices a combination the book has not already built.' This clearly distinguishes it from prebuilt multi/slip tools and sibling SGM pricing tools by name/disambiguation.

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?

Provides clear context: use when pricing a user-selected same game multi with at least two legs from one event. It also sets expectations that uncombinable legs are refused rather than priced. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use a different tool (e.g., prebuilt SGM lists or price slip tools), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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