draftkings_live

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does this by describing the snapshot nature of the live-events response and explicitly disclosing that an empty `events` list is valid, preventing the agent from mistaking an empty result for an error. Additional detail about potential throttling or partial data would be useful, but this is already above the minimum.

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 compact and leads with the core statement, followed by contents and an edge-case note. The opening sentence 'DraftKings Sportsbook live events' is somewhat redundant with the second sentence, but the overall structure is clean and each remaining sentence adds value.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does a solid job of explaining the response essentials and a valid empty-result scenario. It could be more complete by specifying the structure of an individual event object, but for invoking this specific tool and consuming its high-level output, the agent has enough information.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered and no parameter-specific semantics are required. The description avoids inventing parameter details that do not exist, so it satisfies the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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, 'Returns', and a precise resource: live events currently shown by DraftKings Sportsbook. It enumerates the response contents (score state, period, primary markets, market categories), making the tool's function clear and distinguishable from related DraftKings tools.

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?

It clearly establishes when the tool is relevant — to obtain current live events — and notes that an empty list is a valid outcome when no live events exist. It also hints at downstream use with /draftkings/sportsbook/event-markets, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as draftkings_league_events for non-live event data.

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