kelly_stake

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the negative-edge behavior ('negative edge recommends no stake'), which is useful. However, it does not mention output format, rounding, or how the Kelly fraction interacts with the result.

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. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key edge case.

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 calculation tool with no output schema, the description is passable but incomplete. It lacks return format (e.g., cents) and details on how fractional Kelly is applied, which are relevant given the parameters.

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 75% (fraction, decimalOdds, probability have descriptions; bankrollCents does not). The description adds the context of 'edge' tying probability and odds together, but does not compensate for bankrollCents or clarify fractional Kelly mechanics.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: computing a Kelly-criterion stake. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like convert_odds or settle_single, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'calculates'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool over alternatives or what prerequisites are needed. The only contextual hint is the negative-edge rule, which describes behavior, not usage scenarios.

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