parlayapi_parlay_verdict

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the no-vig nature, book-scoping behavior, correlation warnings, EV reporting, and payout computation. It does not explicitly state that no bet is placed or that the result is advisory-only, though the wording 'grade', 'should you bet it' strongly implies analysis rather than execution.

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 opening line is immediately informative, the output list is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. The inline leg example is long but earns its place given the nested leg shape. No redundant marketing language or restatement of the tool name.

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 core use case, input format, optional stake/book controls, and book scoping prerequisites. Combined with the existing output schema, an agent can invoke the tool correctly. The only completeness gap is the lack of mention of kelly and bankroll, which have defaults but no description here or schema coverage.

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 explains legs with a concrete example, defines region values, describes books as CSV override, and clarifies the purpose of stake and book. However, kelly and bankroll appear in the schema but are absent from the Args description, which is a modest gap for optional parameters.

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 opens with a clear imperative: 'Grade a multi-leg parlay: should you bet it, and at which book?' It names the specific resource (a multi-leg parlay), the action (grade/evaluate), and the concrete outputs: fair no-vig price, best book, EV, weakest leg, correlation warnings, payout. This strongly distinguishes it from the single-bet sibling parlayapi_verdict.

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 gives clear context: 2 to 12 legs, parlay is one slip rather than best-of-each, and book scope is controlled by parlayapi_set_bettable_books or region/books parameters. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for single-bet verdicts or pure EV lookups, so 'when not to use' is only implied.

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