tab_sgm_price

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

Goes far beyond the readOnlyHint annotations by disclosing the correlation adjustment — the price is not the product of the legs — and the critical behavior that redundant legs are collapsed rather than refused. It explicitly warns agents to check `redundantPropositions` before reporting, and includes a live-verified example with concrete odds.

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?

Longer than average, but every block earns its place: purpose first, return shape, correlation warning, redundant-leg warning, eligibility, concrete example, and auth. Critical caveats are capitalized and scannable, with no fluff.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description supplies a concrete response shape including `bets`, `status: 'ok'`, `redundantPropositions`, and example decimal odds. Combined with eligibility rules, auth note, and a worked request example, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the 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 covers all four parameters with strong descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete request example and the key domain constraint that only markets with `sameGame: true` from `tab_match_markets` can be used, enriching parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Starts with a specific imperative — 'PRICE A SAME GAME MULTI you choose' — and names the resource, output, and scope: propositions from one match, combined price, validation matrix, and combinations TAB has not pre-built. This clearly differentiates it from pre-built price functions and sibling SGM tools.

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 explicit conditions: propositions must be from the same match, at least two propositions, only markets with `sameGame: true` in `tab_match_markets` can be combined, and jurisdiction affects pricing. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives for when-not-to-use, so it misses the top bar.

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