botindex_sports_props

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 mentions 'confidence scores' and 'market value signals', which hints at analytical outputs, but doesn't specify data freshness, update frequency, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'movements' entails (e.g., timeframes, sources). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 with two main sentences, but the phrase '$0.02' adds informal clutter without clear value. The core information is front-loaded, but the informal tag slightly reduces efficiency. It could be more structured by explicitly stating the tool's output or context.

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 0 parameters, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of confidence scores, what 'signals' include), data sources, or usage constraints. For a tool likely providing dynamic betting data, this is incomplete and leaves the agent guessing about behavioral aspects.

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 0 parameters, with 100% schema description coverage (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate, as it efficiently states the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details.

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: 'Top prop bet movements with confidence scores. Player prop market value signals.' It specifies the resource (sports prop bets) and the type of data provided (movements with confidence scores, market value signals). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'botindex_sports_lines' or 'botindex_sports_odds', which might offer related sports betting data.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'botindex_sports_lines' or 'botindex_sports_odds'. The phrase '$0.02' is informal and doesn't add functional guidance.

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