calculate_bounty_chip_equity

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. 'Calculate' and 'convert' signal a pure, side-effect-free computation, which is useful, but the description says nothing about determinism guarantees, assumptions baked into the chip conversion, or what the response looks like.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the primary conversion and appends the secondary equity computation, with no filler. Slightly jargon-heavy for an agent unfamiliar with PKO terminology, but nothing is wasted.

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 five-parameter, all-defaulted calculator with no output schema, the description adequately covers both the input framing and the two results produced. It stops short of explaining how the chip-equivalent is derived or what units the equity output takes, which would matter for chaining into another tool.

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% and every parameter carries a default and an explanation, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning about how starting_stack and regular_pool_buyin feed the chip-equivalence formula, leaving the interesting relationship undocumented.

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 names a concrete transformation ('convert a PKO or Mystery Bounty dollar amount into tournament chip-equivalent value') plus a second derived output ('bounty-adjusted required calling equity'), which is far more specific than the tool name alone. It implicitly separates itself from pure-odds siblings like calculate_pot_odds_and_mdf, though it never names an alternative.

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 poker-specific framing (PKO, Mystery Bounty) implies the situation — you have a bounty amount and an all-in call decision — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement. An agent must infer that this is for tournament bounty spots rather than cash-game pot odds calls.

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