Get Picks History

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, lowering the disclosure burden. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: pagination behavior, historical scope, and the required Pro token. It does not describe failure modes or response shape, but for a read-only paged query this is sufficient.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Paged history of past picks across all markets with filters.' It immediately conveys the core behavior and follows with the important auth requirement. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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 read-only paged query tool, the description covers scope, filters, paging, and authentication, while the schema fully documents all parameters. It would be more complete if it mentioned the expected response shape or explicitly distinguished itself from siblings like flab_picks_today, but nothing essential is missing for invoking the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all eight optional parameters, including types, defaults, and the rating enum. The description's phrase 'with filters' adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the resource ('history of past picks'), scope ('across all markets'), and behavior ('paged', 'filters'), so an agent can understand what the tool returns. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate them, but terms like 'past' and 'all markets' help separate it from tools like flab_picks_today or flab_pick_details.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need paginated historical picks with filters. It also adds a key prerequisite, 'Requires Pro token (FUTPICKS_API_KEY)'. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative sibling tools such as flab_picks_today or flab_track_record.

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