botindex_sports_lines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at output content ('line movements', 'sharp money action flags') but does not specify data format, update frequency, rate limits, or authentication needs. The phrase '$0.02' is ambiguous—possibly indicating cost or trivial value—but adds minimal practical context. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose. The first sentence covers core functionality, and the second adds context. However, the phrase '$0.02' is cryptic and could be considered extraneous, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, data structure, or operational constraints (e.g., real-time vs. historical data). For a sports betting analytics tool, this leaves gaps in understanding how to interpret results, though the simplicity of no parameters mitigates some complexity.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none are required. It adds no semantic details beyond the schema, but with zero parameters, the baseline is 4 as the description adequately aligns with the parameterless nature.

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's purpose: 'Line movements with sharp money action flags. Identifies professional bettor market impact.' It specifies the verb ('identifies') and resource ('line movements'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'botindex_sports_odds' or 'botindex_sports_props' by focusing on market impact analysis rather than raw odds or prop bets. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from 'botindex_sports_correlations', which might overlap in sports betting context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'sharp money action flags' and 'professional bettor market impact', but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, users must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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