get_race_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'calculate' suggests a read-only, non-mutating operation, but it does not disclose whether it uses current market data, accounts for fees, or if any state changes occur. Minimal but not misleading.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 tool with three well-described parameters, the description is mostly complete, but it lacks usage guidance, output format expectations, or behavioral caveats. The absence of an output schema and annotations means the agent must infer details about the payout calculation.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (amount, market, outcomeIndex). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema specifies, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool calculates expected payout for a race market bet on a specific outcome. It uses a specific verb ('calculate'), identifies the resource (race market bet), and the outcome scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_quote.

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 usage for race market bets, but does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives such as get_quote for regular markets. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are provided, leaving the context implicit.

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