bookmaker_margin

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It indicates a pure computation of both margin and fair odds, implying no side effects, but it does not specify the output format or behavior for invalid inputs. This is adequate but not detailed.

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 with no wasted words, stating the core computation and output clearly. It is concise without losing essential meaning.

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 one-parameter tool with a rich schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool computes and returns. Without an output schema, the mention of margin and fair odds provides sufficient context for the agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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?

The schema fully documents the single parameter decimalOdds with type, minimum items, and item descriptions. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond referencing a 'market', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Compute' and clearly identifies the resource (overround/margin) and the derived output (fair odds). It is easily distinguishable from siblings like convert_odds or settle_single, which address different betting calculations.

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 usage for bookmaker margin analysis but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The context is clear from the purpose, yet there is no direct decision-making guidance.

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