get_fixture_odds

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful scope details (markets, per bookmaker) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, odds volatility, or what happens when a fixture has no odds available. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

One compact sentence that immediately states what the tool returns, which markets it covers, and that results are per bookmaker. There is no filler or redundant information; every word 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description reasonably conveys the returned domain: current odds across multiple market types per bookmaker. It could go further by hinting at the output structure for each market, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and the parameter descriptions already explain market, bookmakers, and fixture_id. The description's market list roughly repeats the schema's market examples, adding no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score 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-resource relationship: 'Current betting odds for a fixture', and enumerates the market types and per-bookmaker scope. The word 'Current' distinguishes it from sibling get_odds_history, so an agent can tell this tool from related ones.

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 implies when to use the tool: when current odds are needed, rather than historical odds or raw fixture data. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_odds_history or state when not to use the tool, leaving the routing logic to inference.

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