Expected value prices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: an external API key is required, it is free and cardless, and where to obtain it. It does not mention rate limits, pagination, or whether an invalid/missing key surfaces as an error, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the auth prerequisite. The sign-up URL earns its place because it is actionable setup information, though the phrasing is slightly clipped and could be tightened.

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 an 8-parameter, open-world query tool with no output schema and 25% schema coverage, the definition is thin. It never explains what a returned row looks like, how edge/kelly are computed or sorted, or what happens when no qualifying prices exist, which an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 description coverage is only 25% — only 'task' and 'limit' carry descriptions. The description adds no meaning for book, sort, league, player, min_edge, or market_type, leaving the agent to guess defaults, filter semantics, and how sort interacts with min_edge. With low coverage, the description was expected to compensate and 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?

States a specific resource and scope: prices with positive expected value measured against a fair line. An agent can tell it apart from get_arbitrage or get_odds in principle, but the description never names or contrasts those siblings, so differentiation relies on the agent inferring from tool names alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. 'Analysis, not advice' is a disclaimer rather than a routing rule, and nothing tells the agent to prefer get_arbitrage for guaranteed-profit opportunities or get_odds for raw lines. Only the API-key prerequisite is stated.

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