betfair_cashout

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context with 'Auth: none needed' and the exact return shape, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 four short lines covering purpose, return format, and auth. Every sentence earns its place with zero fluff or repetition.

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 read-only endpoint, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and authentication. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the inline return specification. The only minor gap is that input format for marketIds could be clearer given the array/string ambiguity, but the schema handles the parameter definitions.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the parameters. The description itself does not add param-level detail. Note the schema's marketIds type is array but its description says 'comma-separated', a potential confusion, but that is a schema issue, not a description gap.

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 that the tool provides cash-out availability for one or more markets, and the inline return format specifies the output fields. It effectively distinguishes this from sibling Betfair tools which focus on other data like scores or market prices, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for one or more markets' is the only scope hint, but there is no mention of selecting this over other Betfair market data tools or any exclusion criteria.

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