get_fair_probabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that the tool returns 'vig-removed' probabilities, a key behavioral trait beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose rate limits or other side effects, which is acceptable for a read-only tool.

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 communicates the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown) and three parameters, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It could benefit from explicitly contrasting with get_market_probabilities to clarify 'fair versus standard'. Still, it covers the core functionality.

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%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond 'any market type', which is already implied by the schema's market_type parameter. It neither compensates for gaps nor adds significant meaning.

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 states the verb 'Get', the resource 'fair (vig-removed) probabilities', and the scope 'for any market type', distinguishing it from siblings like get_market_probabilities that likely include vigorish.

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 use for any market type but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_moneylines or get_totals. No alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned.

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