botindex_sports_odds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Live' (implying real-time data) and '$0.02' (possibly indicating cost), but doesn't address critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, error conditions, or what 'snapshot' means operationally. The behavioral context is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured in a single sentence that packs key information: what it provides (odds snapshot), for which sports, what types of odds, and additional feature (bookmaker comparisons). The '$0.02' at the end is somewhat cryptic but doesn't significantly detract from the overall conciseness.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a simple single parameter with full schema coverage, the description provides adequate basic purpose but lacks important contextual details. It doesn't explain return format, error handling, or operational constraints that would be needed for proper tool invocation, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 100% with one parameter clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (which already describes the sport filter with allowed values). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 provides a 'Live sports odds snapshot' for specific sports (NFL, NBA, UFC, NHL) with types of odds (moneyline, spread, totals) and bookmaker comparisons. It uses specific verbs ('snapshot', 'comparisons') and identifies the resource (sports odds), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling sports tools like botindex_sports_lines or botindex_sports_props.

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 '$0.02' which might imply a cost, but doesn't clarify usage context, prerequisites, or when to choose this over other sports-related tools in the sibling list.

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