draftkings_futures

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the data comes from 'DraftKings' credential-free public JSON' and that an empty `events` list is a legitimate response when no markets exist. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a basic 'returns markets' statement, even though it omits rate limits, error handling, and full output shape.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first gives the core purpose, the second defines both parameters, and the third clarifies a likely confusing edge case. The most important context is front-loaded, and every sentence 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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the source, scope, identifier semantics, and expected empty-response behavior. It does not explain the output structure beyond 'markets and selections' and `events`, nor where to find subcategory IDs, but it is sufficient for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%; both parameters already include descriptions ('Numeric DraftKings league id' and 'Numeric DraftKings futures market subcategory id'). The description restates that both are numeric identifiers, reinforcing but not materially expanding the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: it 'returns league-level futures markets and selections' for a given DraftKings market category. It names 'futures' prominently and clarifies the league-level scope, which helps separate it from event-level or odds-focused DraftKings tools. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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 the tool is for fetching DraftKings futures by league_id and subcategory_id, and it explains both identifiers in context. It does not state when to prefer this over alternatives like draftkings_event_markets or draftkings_odds, nor does it give any when-not-to-use guidance. The empty-events note is a useful edge-case hint, but not a usage directive.

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