get_odds_history

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that the response contains every recorded tick and describing the tick fields (price, match minute, running score, UTC timestamp), which is helpful beyond the schema.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the detail about tick contents is delivered in a tightly scoped second sentence.

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 adequately explains what the response contains. It covers the key return fields and scope. Minor omissions such as ordering or pagination behavior are partly covered by the page parameter in the schema, so the description remains sufficiently complete for this tool.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description reinforces that fixture_id and market are the core selectors but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 resource ('full price-movement history') with scope constraints ('one fixture and market') and clarifies it returns every recorded tick. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_fixture_odds, which presumably returns current or near-term odds, by the historical and tick-level nature of the data.

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 it: when you need the complete tick-level price history for a fixture and market. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with get_fixture_odds or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate alternative.

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