unibet_sgm_price

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: odds are in thousandths, prices cap at 1001.0, selectedOdds can be absent rather than zero, duplicate IDs are silently deduplicated, and refusal status codes have distinct meanings. It also clearly explains that combinableOutcomeIds signals eligibility, not compatibility, which would be very hard to discover safely otherwise. No contradiction with annotations.

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 definition is front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then organized into clearly labeled behavioral warnings with an example near the end. It is long, but nearly every section addresses a distinct trap that would otherwise lead to a wrong value or misunderstanding. A slight deduction for verbosity and some redundancy around scaling and eligibility; otherwise it earns its length.

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, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values and failure modes. It covers selectedOdds formats, selectedOutcomeIds as an echo, combinableOutcomeIds semantics, missing-key behavior, four different HTTP refusal cases, auth requirements, and the upstream body projection. This is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly and interpret results confidently.

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 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions including default values, comma-joined outcomeIds, single-leg no-price behavior, and ID provenance. The description adds value with a concrete worked example, the silent-deduplication warning, and emphasis that all outcome IDs must belong to one event. Most of the extra value is behavioral rather than purely parameter syntax, so a 4 is appropriate rather than a 5.

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 opening sentence names the action (price), the object (a same-game multi built from two or more outcome IDs in one Unibet/Kambi event), and the key scope: it prices combinations Unibet has not pre-built. It also distinguishes itself from unibet_kambi_call operation='event_prepack', which covers pre-built combos. This is clear, specific, and differentiates from 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?

The description explicitly says when to use it: for user-chosen combos that Unibet has not pre-built, and directs the agent to unibet_kambi_call operation='event_prepack' for the alternative. It also states the core precondition — two or more outcome IDs from one event — and warns that a single leg produces no price, which is critical usage guidance.

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