settle_picks

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

With no annotations, the description is the only behavioral disclosure, and it provides useful traits: supported markets, fuzzy team-name matching, fallback date handling, and the output shape. It leaves edge behaviors implicit, such as how unmatched picks are treated and whether anything is persisted, so it is not a 5.

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 tightly structured: purpose sentence, a worked pick example, market list, matching note, and an Args block. It is front-loaded and every sentence contributes.

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 moderate-complexity settlement tool, it covers input shape, market domain, matching tolerance, and date fallback, while the output schema covers return values. Slightly more detail on unmatched picks and exact market encodings would make it fully complete.

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%, but the description compensates by documenting each pick's required fields with a concrete JSON example and explaining the optional date fallback. It stops short of listing exact accepted strings for every market and any odds constraints, which is the main gap.

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 first sentence names a concrete action ('settle'), the object ('list of picks'), the data source ('real scorelines'), and the output ('per-pick results plus totals'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_results and get_fixtures, even without naming them.

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 invocation context clear: pass picks that need settling and an optional fallback date, and it resolves them against the day's fixtures. It does not include explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, so it misses the top tier.

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