calculate_icm_payouts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the output is tournament equity in dollars based on stacks and payouts, but does not disclose assumptions, edge cases, rounding, output structure, or how stacks and payouts must correspond.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It clearly names the calculation and the inputs in a compact form.

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 simple two-parameter calculator, the description identifies the calculation and output unit. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should do more to clarify the return shape and any assumptions or edge cases an agent needs to call and interpret it 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%, and the schema already explains both parameters in detail with examples. The description restates their conceptual roles but adds no syntax or constraints beyond the input schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: calculate Independent Chip Model (ICM) tournament equity in dollars, and identifies the core inputs (stack sizes and prize payouts). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling poker calculators such as calculate_bounty_chip_equity.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent can infer it is for ICM equity calculations, but there is no routing guidance against the many sibling calculation tools.

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