parlayapi_signup

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned values (API key, magic-login URL, Stripe upgrade URL), idempotency, the exists=true case, and the intentional non-exposure of existing API keys for security. This gives the agent strong behavioral expectations.

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 structured with key behavior first, then usage guidance, then parameter details. It is slightly dense and the agent_id default is repeated from the schema, but every section earns its place and no irrelevant information is present.

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 3-parameter tool with one required param, the description fully covers what happens, what is returned, the idempotent edge case, and the follow-up step for the user. The Agent can safely invoke this tool and handle its response.

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 Args section is essential and fully compensates. It explains email is the user's address, intended_use is optional and used for analytics, and agent_id identifies the calling agent. Compared to the minimal schema, this is a complete semantic mapping.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Create a free-tier ParlayAPI account for the given email.' It clearly distinguishes signup from the other ParlayAPI siblings by focusing on account creation and conveying what the call returns. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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: 'Use this when a user wants to start building with ParlayAPI and does not have a key yet.' It also explains the follow-up action after signup. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops slightly short of a 5.

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