parlayapi_magic_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description properly carries the behavioral disclosure. It reveals the critical anti-enumeration behavior—always returning ok=true regardless of email existence—and tells the user that the recipient is emailed. This addresses the most important behavioral and security traits.

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 tightly-constructed sentences. The primary action is stated first, followed only by the essential behavioral caveat. There is no redundant or extraneous content.

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 has only one required parameter, a straightforward input schema, and an output schema, so the description does not need to detail explicit return format. It provides the essential operation, the email delivery outcome, and the return consistency behavior—enough for an agent to call and interpret it 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?

The schema only defines email as a string, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds the meaningful context that the email must correspond to an existing ParlayAPI account and is the destination for the magic link. For a single simple parameter, this is sufficient.

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-resource relationship ('Email a magic-login link for an existing ParlayAPI account') and clearly scopes the tool to account authentication. The phrase 'existing ParlayAPI account' distinguishes it from the sign-up flow among the sibling tools.

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 it clear this applies only to existing accounts, which implies using signup for new accounts. It does not name the signup alternative explicitly, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select this tool over siblings.

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