betfair_event_timelines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool provides live timelines and scores for in-play events, and outlines the return structure. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior when events are not in-play. The description adds some behavioral context but is not comprehensive for a tool with no annotations.

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 at two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, the second outlines the return structure. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no filler. While it could be slightly more structured, it efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not specify limits on the number of eventIds, explain the 'live timelines' component beyond scores, or describe error handling, pagination, or prerequisites. The return structure is partially documented but the overall context for using the tool safely and effectively is incomplete.

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 4 parameters (_ak, alt, locale, eventIds) with 0% description coverage. The description only implicitly references eventIds (by showing return data per eventId) but does not explain the meaning, defaults, or purpose of _ak, alt, or locale. With such low coverage, the description fails to add meaningful parameter context beyond the schema.

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 'Live timelines + running scores for several in-play events at once (batch).' It uses specific verbs ('returns') and resources ('timelines', 'running scores') and distinguishes itself from the singular 'betfair_event_timeline' sibling by explicitly mentioning 'batch' and 'several events.'

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 implies usage is for batch retrieval of multiple in-play events, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'betfair_event_timeline' for a single event. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, only the word 'batch' hints at the distinction.

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