get_recent_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clarifies the default scope ('across all bots') and the nature of data ('bets being placed'), but does not disclose ordering, freshness criteria, or required permissions. It is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks depth.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and purpose. Every word contributes to understanding, with no fluff or repetition.

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 list-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the purpose and default scope. It could benefit from mentioning return value fields, but the tool's simplicity and the schema's completeness keep the description adequate.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by confirming that omitting bot_id returns activities across all bots, which reinforces the default behavior. It does not detail limit syntax, but the schema already covers that.

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 clearly states the tool fetches recent betting activity across all bots, using specific verbs ('Get') and resource ('betting activity'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_leaderboard (rankings) and get_bot_stats (per-bot stats) by emphasizing a cross-bot activity feed.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: monitoring live bets and competition evolution. It implies a cross-bot scope, differentiating from tools like get_bot_stats, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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