draftkings_odds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does good work: it discloses that the data is credential-free, sourced from public JSON, and that an empty response is a legitimate outcome rather than an error. It does not go deep into rate limits, response shape, or failure modes, but for a simple read-only odds lookup the core behavioral traits are honestly exposed.

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 efficient: it leads with the tool's purpose, names the response scope, gives parameter guidance, and clarifies the empty-list behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and no extraneous information is included.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the necessary selection, parameter, and expected-result information. It does not fully specify the response fields or nested event structure, but it communicates the all-important empty-response case and tells the agent exactly what kind of data will be returned. That is reasonably complete for this complexity level.

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 input schema only says 'Numeric DraftKings league ID', and the description adds meaningful context by explaining that league_id is a numeric DraftKings identifier and telling the agent where to find it from the league's Sportsbook page. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is a 3, but this description goes beyond it with discovery guidance.

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 primary betting markets (moneyline, spread, total) for every upcoming event in a DraftKings Sportsbook league. It also names the source data, making it clear this is league-wide odds retrieval rather than event-specific or futures data, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like draftkings_event_markets 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 implies the intended use case: retrieve standard odds across an entire DraftKings Sportsbook league. It provides useful context by explaining how to find league_id and noting that an empty events list is a valid response when nothing is scheduled. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use this tool, but the league-scope and market-scope constraints make its usage context clear.

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