Calculate combined odds and expected value for accumulator bets, showing how the edge decreases with each additional leg.
Combined odds and EV of an accumulator, plus how fast the edge decays with each leg.
Args: legs: e.g. [{"probability": 0.6, "odds": 1.8}, {"probability": 0.5, "odds": 2.0}]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| legs | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states what is computed. It does not mention side effects, error handling, assumptions about odds format, or the meaning of 'edge decay' beyond the phrase. This is insufficient for a tool with a complex input.
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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The args example is helpful, though presented informally rather than as a structured spec. Overall, it is efficient and easy to parse.
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 tool has a single parameter that is a free-form array of objects, yet the description only gives an example. It does not define required fields, acceptable ranges, or how the output is structured (though an output schema exists). An agent may struggle to correctly construct valid input beyond the given example.
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 schema offers zero description for the 'legs' array items, but the description provides a concrete example showing the expected structure (probability and odds per leg). This adds some value beyond the empty schema, though it does not fully specify all possible fields or constraints.
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 states the tool computes combined odds, EV, and edge decay for an accumulator, with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_fixtures or evaluate_price, which serve different purposes.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.