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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: the tool returns a snapshot, has no line history, and requires the caller to snapshot responses themselves for historical tracking. It also clarifies that it is not an archive, which is non-obvious and valuable for correct use.

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 dense but front-loaded: the core definition comes first, followed by use cases, then shape comparison, then explicit exclusions. Every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation information, with no 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?

For a read-only tool with no required parameters, fully documented schema, and no output schema, the description provides enough context: exact semantic scope, a shape reference to get_live_odds, and limitations on historical data. An agent can select and invoke it correctly without additional clarification.

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 all three parameters are already documented with defaults, bounds, and meaning. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource: it returns current pre-game odds for the product's board, including open markets, decimal prices, and no-vig probability. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_live_odds by saying it is the same shape but for prematch odds, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

Explicit use cases are given: pre-game prices, closing-line-value work, pre-match modelling, and no-vig fair value. It also provides clear exclusions — not an opening/closing archive, not a multi-book scanner, and not a bet-placement tool — so an agent knows when not to select it.

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