kelly_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it records a result and returns a next amount, but does not mention side effects (e.g., state mutation) or whether it requires prior initialization. For a betting system tool, this is insufficient.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's action and output. No extraneous words, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is adequate but lacks details on the return format, prerequisites (e.g., system initialization), and the basis for the next bet amount (e.g., Kelly criterion). It serves as a minimal viable description.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context that the tool returns a next recommended bet amount, which is not in the schema, but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides.

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 records a bet result (win/loss) and returns the next recommended bet amount. The verb 'record' and resource 'bet result' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like martingale_record by focusing on the Kelly system.

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?

Usage is implied: after a bet, record the result. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other betting system tools (e.g., martingale_record), or prerequisites like needing to initialize the Kelly system first.

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