betfair_cashout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or handles errors (e.g., invalid marketIds). Only the return format is disclosed.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences: one for purpose and one for return format. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.

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?

Despite low schema coverage and no annotations, the description fails to explain parameter usage or provide examples. The return format is given but not the structure of cashout or partial fields. The tool is underspecified for reliable invocation.

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?

Schema parameter descriptions are absent (0% coverage). The description implies marketIds is input but does not specify the format, type, or valid values. Parameters _ak and alt are entirely unexplained, leaving ambiguity for the AI agent.

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 returns cash-out availability for one or more markets, specifying the verb and resource. It also provides the return format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like betfair_market_prices which serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like betfair_market_prices or betfair_markets_by_event. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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