evaluate_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It clarifies input formats (probability as decimal, not percentage) and parameter semantics, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or has no side effects. For a calculation tool, this is acceptable but not fully transparent about output behavior.

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 concise, front-loaded with a one-line summary, and uses a clear Args block. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, all parameters, and example formats. An output schema exists, so return values are not required. Minor gaps like input range validation (probability between 0 and 1, odds >1) are not mentioned, but these are likely enforced elsewhere or implied. Overall, sufficient for an agent 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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: probability as a decimal, odds as decimal price, margin_pct as the required edge, and kelly_fraction as stake scaling. It adds meaning well beyond the schema's bare names and defaults.

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 clear action ('Judge a price against your own probability') and lists the computed outputs (fair odds, EV, minimum odds, scaled Kelly stake). This distinguishes it from siblings like devig_market and parlay_math, which address different betting calculations.

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 purpose implies usage for single-price evaluation, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., devig_market for market-wide vig removal). No when-not conditions are stated, leaving some inference to the agent.

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