Sorqen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool itself requires no API key and describes exactly what it explains. For a parameterless informational tool, there are no side effects or permission concerns left undisclosed.

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 tight sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds distinct value: one states what the tool explains, the other states the authentication requirement. Important information 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 tool's simplicity, empty parameter schema, and absence of an output schema, the description is complete. An agent can determine when to invoke it and what kind of content it will receive without additional context.

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, so there is no parameter behavior to explain. The empty schema combined with 100% schema description coverage is not a gap; the baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool applies.

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 specific verb, 'Explain', and names the exact resources: the discovery/data boundary and how to attach a Sorqen API key. It also clarifies scope with 'No API key required', distinguishing it from sibling data-access tools like list_leagues and get_fair_value.

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 makes clear this tool is for authentication guidance, and the 'No API key required' note is a useful usage condition. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling names show this is the only auth-related tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses the key auth trait ('No API key required'). 'Describe' implies a non-mutating information operation, so the absence of side-effect disclosure is not a major gap. It does not describe the output format, but this is a minor omission for a simple explanatory tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the alternative. Every clause earns its place and no redundant schema information is repeated.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema explanatory tool, the description is complete: it says what it describes, that no auth is needed, and when to prefer a sibling. An agent has enough information to decide whether to call it.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description's 'No API key required' note is not parameter documentation but removes a potential confusion about required inputs.

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 states a specific verb ('Describe') and a specific resource ('versioned fair-value method and refusal philosophy'), and the second sentence distinguishes it from list_fair_values by saying the latter is for current data. This clearly identifies the tool's scope relative to its siblings.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: use this tool to interpret Sorqen numbers and use list_fair_values for current data. This gives an agent a clear decision rule for choosing between two otherwise similar tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that no API key is required and clarifies the free tier's authentication semantics. It does not describe output format or additional behavior, but this is a simple informational tool, so the disclosure is adequate.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the additional authentication nuance earns its place by preventing a common misunderstanding about what 'free' means.

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?

The tool is low-complexity with no parameters and no output schema, so the description does not need extensive detail. It includes the critical context that no API key is required and clarifies the free access model. A small gap is the lack of any statement about the return format, but 'public plan limits and entitlements' sufficiently implies the content.

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 input schema is empty, which gives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning because there are none; the 'No API key required' note adds relevant usage context beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Describe public plan limits and entitlements.' The word 'public' helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_plan, though it does not explicitly name any sibling. Overall the purpose is clear and not a tautology.

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?

'No API key required' gives a clear condition for using this tool without authentication, and 'Free is authenticated real access, not anonymous data access' clarifies a key distinction. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_plan or describe_authentication, leaving some routing to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add an auth requirement ('Requires a Sorqen key') and the 'current' nature of the value, but does not describe error behavior, return shape, or data freshness beyond 'current'.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action and parameter come first, followed by the authentication note and the alternative-tool routing.

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 one-parameter lookup tool, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, auth, and the alternative. It omits output structure and error conditions, but the simplicity and title reduce the impact of those gaps.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. It conveys that outcome_id is canonical and already known, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema type, but it does not describe format, source, or examples.

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 action ('Return'), resource ('one current fair value'), and the key identifier ('canonical outcome id'). It clearly distinguishes itself from list_fair_values and get_fair_value_history by targeting a single current value by known id.

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?

Explicitly directs when to use this tool ('when the outcome id is already known') and when to use the sibling ('use list_fair_values for discovery'). This is clear routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses authentication requirements and plan-level gating, which is valuable. But it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how plan limits manifest (error vs empty result), or what the response contains.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the key access constraints. Every sentence earns its place.

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 2-parameter read tool, the description covers the core purpose and access restrictions. However, 'history windows' is undefined, and because there is no output schema, the absence of any mention of the return format leaves a meaningful gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies outcome_id via 'one outcome' and vaguely references 'history windows' without explaining the days parameter. The meaning and effect of days are left entirely to the schema's min/max values.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Return fair-value history for one outcome.' The phrase 'history' and 'one outcome' clearly distinguishes it from get_fair_value (likely current value) and list_fair_values (likely multiple outcomes), and the title reinforces the purpose.

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?

It provides useful usage context: requires a Sorqen key, and Free plans have no history while Builder and above unlock history windows. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Return') and discloses the auth requirement ('Requires a Sorqen key'). However, it does not describe failure modes, how the key is supplied, or the exact structure of 'limits and entitlements', leaving some ambiguity.

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 short sentences carry the action, scope, auth requirement, and usage trigger with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, that a key is required, and when to use it. It would benefit from explaining how the Sorqen key is provided or what happens without one, but the core invocation context is present.

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, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description accurately focuses on the return value rather than inputs. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since parameter semantics are not applicable.

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 states a clear action and resource: 'Return the caller plan, limits and entitlements.' This distinguishes it from general catalog tools like describe_plans by focusing on the caller's own plan. It does not explicitly name sibling distinctions, but the title and phrasing make the purpose clear.

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 gives a concrete use condition: 'Use when a field is locked or a limit is reached.' This tells an agent when to invoke the tool. It does not name alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use cases, but the trigger scenario is helpful and specific.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses an authorization prerequisite (Sorqen key) and the nature of the data (context, not market feed), which is meaningful. It does not describe return format, side effects, or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter lookup this is a modest gap.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the action and object; the second adds a prerequisite and a category disclaimer. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter context tool with no output schema, the description states what it returns, its auth requirement, and its intended use case. It does not elaborate on the shape of the returned rules, but the tool is simple and sibling tools provide contrast. Overall, the essential guidance is present.

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, so the baseline is 4; there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The schema coverage of 100% is vacuous, and the description adds the relevant non-parameter context (auth key).

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 specific verb ('Return') and names a concrete resource ('Sorqen settlement-context rules and tie prior'), and clarifies its role as context for the local client comparison path. The closing sentence explicitly differentiates it from a venue market feed, which helps an agent avoid confusing it with data-feed tools. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling tool, so differentiation is by category rather than direct comparison.

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?

It states the required precondition ('Requires a Sorqen key') and situates the tool within a specific path ('local client comparison path'). It also gives exclusion guidance by saying it is 'context, not a venue market feed.' It does not explicitly list sibling tools or say 'use X instead,' but the intended context is clear enough.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the no-look-ahead property, the pending close/result behavior with 'null, never zero', and that venue is never fetched. It does not describe the exact return shape, but the material behavioral context is well covered.

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?

Four sentences, each contributing a distinct piece of information: purpose, auth requirement, look-ahead property, pending semantics, and venue behavior. No filler or repetition.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers core behavior, auth, pending-state semantics, and the role of venue, while the input schema handles parameter details. The only notable gap is that the returned grade metrics are mentioned but not enumerated.

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 documents price, observed_at, and venue with 75% coverage, including the important 'format is declared, never inferred' detail. The description adds only that venue is a label Sorqen never fetches, which is useful but marginal. outcome_id remains undocumented in both schema and description, but the high schema coverage keeps this at baseline.

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 states a specific verb and object: 'Grade a pregame price or probability' against Sorqen's fair value, close, and settled result. This clearly distinguishes the tool from fetch-oriented siblings like get_fair_value and get_fair_value_history.

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 gives clear context: use this when you have an observed pregame price and want to grade it against Sorqen's record. It also states a prerequisite ('Requires a Sorqen key') and the schema adds the 'Must be before the scheduled start' constraint. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the authentication requirement (Sorqen key) and plan-dependent data behavior (free keys get real values within Free limits; evidence on paid plans). It does not mention pagination behavior or rate limits, but it makes the read-only nature and data source clear.

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 three short sentences with no filler. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by access constraints and sibling differentiation. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, access requirements, and sibling differentiation, which makes it minimally viable. However, with five optional parameters and no output schema, it lacks details about pagination semantics, the exact return shape, and what 'supported upcoming markets' means. An agent could still call it correctly based on the schema, but with avoidable ambiguity.

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 0%, and the description does not explain limit, cursor, league, market_type, or min_confidence. The general 'scanning/filtering' framing hints at the tool's purpose but leaves parameter semantics largely to inference. This is a notable gap for an agent selecting filter values.

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 specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('current no-vig sportsbook-consensus probabilities'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from get_fair_value by explicitly framing this tool as for scanning/filtering rather than looking up one known outcome.

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 gives explicit guidance: use this tool for scanning/filtering, and use get_fair_value for a single known outcome. It also adds important usage context about requiring a Sorqen key and free vs. paid plan limits, which helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It usefully discloses 'No API key required,' and the word 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not describe response format or pagination, but for a simple metadata endpoint this is sufficient.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance and auth note are delivered efficiently.

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 parameterless, authentication-free listing tool, the description provides enough context for an agent to call it correctly: what it lists and when to use it. It does not specify the exact output shape, but the nature of the result is clear from the stated content.

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, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies, and the description does not introduce confusion about arguments.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List supported league ids, market types and periods.' This differentiates it from siblings by positioning it as a metadata lookup used before fair-value queries, not for live prices.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use before a fair-value query when you do not already know the allowed ids.' It also provides a clear exclusion: 'do not use it for live prices,' which distinguishes it from price-related sibling tools.

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