unibet_validate_coupon

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations by disclosing anonymous operation, optional token auth, rate-limit headers, response envelope, the 'SUCCESS' string requirement, validSession as a token-health signal, and the absence of couponRows/price in the reply. This is exceptionally transparent for a tool without an output schema.

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 front-loaded with the critical action and each paragraph earn its place: response format, success check, no-price warning, validSession meaning, rewardInfo, rate limits, and auth. The internal contradiction around 'RE-PRICE' costs it a perfect score on structure.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by specifying the return envelope, how to interpret status/validSession/rewardInfo, what is missing from the response, and how this call fits into the wider bet-placement workflow. Nothing essential is left for the agent to guess.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already provides a fully worked body example, odds-thousandths clarification, and notes about what validate does not carry. The main description adds only the 'send the exact coupon' guidance and go/no-go framing, which is modest additional value 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as the pre-placement validate/go-no-go check for a Kambi coupon and distinguishes it from pricing via unibet_sgm_price. However, the opening phrase 'VALIDATE AND RE-PRICE' is contradicted later by 'IT DOES NOT ECHO A PRICE,' so the primary purpose statement is not fully clean.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call immediately before unibet_place_bet and to place only if the response is clean. It also names unibet_sgm_price as the correct tool for checking price drift, and clearly states this tool cannot be used for re-pricing.

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