devig_market

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that the tool strips margin and returns probabilities, implying a pure calculation with no side effects. It doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, but the nature of the operation makes that obvious. It also clarifies the input format (decimal prices) which is helpful.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence stating the purpose, followed by a clear parameter explanation. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple single-parameter calculation tool with an output schema available, the description fully explains the input and the conceptual output. It doesn't need to describe the return format since the output schema covers that. There are no missing details an agent would need to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains that 'prices' are decimal prices of all outcomes of the same market and provides a concrete example ([1.75, 3.6, 4.4] for 1X2), adding meaning far beyond the raw 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 states a specific action (strip bookmaker margin) on a specific resource (one market's prices) and clearly differentiates from siblings like evaluate_price or parlay_math by focusing on devigging a single market. The example clarifies the intended use.

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 makes the purpose clear and it's obvious this is the only tool for devigging among the siblings, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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