draftkings_event_markets

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

There are no annotations, so the description shoulders the transparency burden. It discloses that the data comes from a credential-free public JSON source and that an empty markets list is valid, which are meaningful behavioral details. It stops short of describing error cases or rate limits, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 tightly structured: summary, parameter sourcing, then valid edge case. Backticked field names improve scannability, and every sentence earns its place. No redundant 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?

Given no output schema, the description names the returned concepts (markets and selections) and explicitly covers the empty-markets valid response. It is slightly short on the internal shape of market/selection objects, but for selection and invocation it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds real discovery value: how to locate event_id via the id field of an odds result and subcategory_id via subcategory_id on a market, plus examples of category types. An agent can correctly resolve both parameters from this guidance 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 verb and resource: it returns one event's betting markets and selections for a specific market category. This exactly distinguishes it from sibling tools like draftkings_odds, draftkings_event, and draftkings_futures.

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 clearly indicates when this tool is useful: with an event_id and subcategory_id, obtainable from /draftkings/sportsbook/odds or event network traffic. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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