parlay_odds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'combine' without explaining the output format, validation of decimal odds, how invalid inputs are handled, or any rounding/pricing behavior. The description gives minimal insight into actual behavior.

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 sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the key action is front-loaded. It is optimally 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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one well-documented parameter, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description implies the result is an 'accumulator price,' but it does not explicitly state the return type or edge cases. It covers the basic concept but leaves some ambiguity for a simple calculator.

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%—the 'legs' parameter has a clear description ('Decimal odds per leg') and items description with examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's thorough 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 'Combine' and clearly identifies the resource: 'several legs into one accumulator price.' This distinguishes it from siblings like convert_odds, settle_accumulator, or kelly_stake, which handle different betting operations.

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 the tool is for combining multiple odds into an accumulator price, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as convert_odds or settle_accumulator. There are no stated exclusions or comparative context.

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