get_parimutuel_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important context by revealing the version (v7.2), the content (blocked terms, required data sources, validation rules), and the consequence of ignoring the rules (invalid markets will be rejected). This goes beyond the tool name and provides meaningful transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with a clear purpose and followed by a critical warning. Every clause adds value: the version, the scope ('Lab market creation'), the warning to read it before creating markets, and the specific contents of the rules.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what it returns and why it matters. It includes the version, the use-case, and the critical prerequisite, making it self-sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema's empty properties are 100% covered by definition. According to the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not.

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 specic verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('v7.2 parimutuel rules for Lab market creation'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_timing_rules' or 'validate_market_params' by focusing on the parimutuel rules and the Lab market creation context.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'CRITICAL: Read this BEFORE creating any market.' It clearly states the prerequisite nature and the purpose of the rules. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or mention when not to use this tool, so it falls slightly short of a perfect score.

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