Current full odds detail for one event (live, prematch or special) by event_id. Use after get_live_odds / get_prematch_odds returns the id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes | Event id from another odds tool |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds context about the data being current full odds and the event categories, but it does not describe the response format or any edge-case behavior. With the annotation handling the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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: the first front-loads what the tool does and the second gives the usage condition. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.
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, read-only tool, the description covers what the tool does, which event types it applies to, and where to get the event_id. The lack of an output schema makes 'full odds detail' somewhat underspecified, but nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.
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% and event_id is described as 'Event id from another odds tool.' The description adds value by naming get_live_odds / get_prematch_odds as the source tools and by specifying that lookup is by event_id, giving the agent more actionable guidance than the schema alone.
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 operation: retrieving current full odds detail for one event by event_id, and it names the covered event types (live, prematch, special). This distinguishes it from the sibling list tools like get_live_odds and get_prematch_odds, which return collections of events rather than a single event's detail.
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 explicitly tells the agent to use get_event after get_live_odds / get_prematch_odds returns the id, establishing a clear call sequence. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternative tools for other data types, but the primary workflow is clearly conveyed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
get_live_odds and get_prematch_odds are clearly separated by live vs prematch, but get_prematch_lines, get_prematch_odds, and get_event all deal with prematch/event odds and could be confused. The descriptions clarify one-sport vs one-event vs full-detail scopes, but the boundaries require careful reading.
Most tools follow a clean get_<object> pattern (get_live_odds, get_prematch_odds, get_drops, get_event, get_health), and casing is consistent. list_sports breaks the pattern by using a different verb, and get_event/get_drops are slightly more generic than their odds-specific siblings, but overall the naming is predictable.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a focused odds-and-drops API. Each tool maps to a distinct need: sport mapping, live odds, prematch odds, event detail, price drops, and health/status, with no obvious fat to trim.
The core read-only odds surface is well covered: sports discovery, live and prematch odds, per-event detail, drops, and feed health. The main gap is that no-vig fair prices are only exposed through the drops tool rather than being available as a consistent property across all odds endpoints.