football_build_accumulator

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) are consistent. The description adds key behavioral details: internal call to football_find_value_bets, selection of strongest legs, return of risk_flag and independence_warning. No contradictions.

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?

Description includes docstring with Args and Returns blocks. Some redundancy with param descriptions, but overall well-structured and informative. Could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (joint probability model, internal call), the description covers purpose, workflow, parameters, and return fields. Output schema exists, and the description complements it.

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 100% with descriptions and defaults. The description repeats param info but adds context on how they are used (selects strongest legs based on edge), providing marginal added value.

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 models joint probability of match outcomes using top model-vs-market gaps, calls an internal function, selects strongest legs, and combines them. It distinguishes from siblings like cross_sport_build_accumulator and cricket tools.

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 explains the internal workflow and parameters (legs, min_edge). It implies usage for building accumulators from value bets but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use.

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