get_market_probabilities

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

No annotations provided, and the description only discloses the basic conversion (vig removal) without any details on data freshness, rate limits, error behavior, or what happens if odds are unavailable.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and add a specific use-case, with no superfluous content.

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?

Output schema exists to cover return values, and the description explains the conversion and use case well, though it could clarify the scope of 'winner market' across sports.

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% with clear parameter descriptions; the description adds no additional value beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score.

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?

Clearly states it returns implied probabilities for the winner market and explains the conversion from odds with vig removed, distinguishing from related siblings like get_odds or get_fair_probabilities.

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?

Mentions usefulness for prediction market contract creation but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_odds or get_fair_probabilities, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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