Betting Tips AI

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The description does add useful context beyond annotations: 'including a short analysis when ready' signals the analysis field may be absent or delayed, and the no-wagering/ads/affiliate note characterizes the content's nature.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and keyed to the slug. The 'Read-only' clause duplicates the annotation and could be dropped, but there is no padding or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states what comes back (a tip plus optional analysis). For a read-only, non-destructive single-lookup tool this is nearly sufficient; it omits only edge behavior such as an unknown or not-yet-published slug.

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 100% — slug has an example and sport documents its enum values including the soccer/football aliasing. The description adds nothing beyond 'by match slug', so the schema does all the work; baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns one informational tip') and scopes it by match slug, which cleanly separates it from the list_* siblings that return collections. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied by 'one' versus 'list' rather than stated.

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 by 'by match slug' — the agent infers it needs a known slug, whereas list_today_tips/list_recent_results cover discovery. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given, so the routing burden stays with the agent.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'Read-only' is a redundant restatement rather than new information. The description does add behavioral scope by clarifying that only leagues with hub URLs on the site are returned, which tells the agent something about the result set that annotations do not.

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, scoping information front-loaded, no filler. Slightly terse but every clause carries meaning.

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 single-optional-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (hub URLs on-site) and the read-only nature. Adequate, though it could say more about the result shape given the absence of an output schema.

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 100% and the single enum parameter (sport) is fully documented in the schema, including the soccer/football disambiguation. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (leagues), and narrows the scope to those with tip pages on bettingtipsai.com. The scope qualifier implicitly differentiates it from the tip/results siblings, though it never names them.

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 by the scope ('leagues that have tip pages'), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of the sibling tools as alternatives (get_match_tip, list_recent_results, list_today_tips).

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description merely restates this as "Read-only", which adds no new information. It omits useful behavior such as ordering, default limit, or how many results are returned, and the disclaimer sentence is a compliance note rather than behavioral disclosure.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and no padding. The middle disclaimer sentence is the only marginally expendable element.

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?

With no output schema, the description does well to indicate the return content (hit/miss outcomes), but it leaves default paging, ordering, and result volume unspecified for a list tool. Adequate but with clear 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 description coverage is 50%: the sport enum has a clarifying note while limit (1-30) is undocumented. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap as required for a low-coverage 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: returns recently settled tip outcomes (hit/miss). The parenthetical clarifies the return content, which is genuinely differentiating. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_today_tips, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"For track-record questions" implies a use case but gives no explicit when-to-use versus list_today_tips or get_match_tip, and no exclusions. Usage context is only implied.

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?

Annotations cover read-only safety, and the description adds valuable non-obvious context: it renders cards, does not place bets, open sportsbooks, show ads, or return affiliate links. It does not disclose rate limits or ordering, but goes beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with what it returns; the negative list is slightly verbose but earns its place given the gambling context. Structured and readable.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies return fields, behavioral constraints, and rendering context. It omits result ordering and empty-state behavior, but is largely complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds returned field names and confirms football/cricket scope, but does not clarify limit defaults, league slug format, or sport enum semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 (Returns) and resource (upcoming match tips), enumerates returned fields, and implicitly distinguishes from list_recent_results (upcoming vs past) and get_match_tip (list vs single). Scope is clear without opening schemas.

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?

Implies usage for upcoming football/cricket tips and chat card rendering, but does not explicitly say when to choose this over get_match_tip or list_recent_results. No exclusions or routing guidance are given.

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