betfair_market_prices

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions returns a complex structure and includes an example, but lacks critical behavioral details like data freshness, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The output structure is partially described, but no information about potential delays or restrictions.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, making it concise. However, it lacks structured sections for parameters or usage. The example 'Price two markets' is too minimal to be helpful. It could be more efficient by adding parameter explanations without increasing length significantly.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It only provides the return structure but does not clarify the role of required parameters, parameter defaults, or how to construct a valid request. Users are left to guess how to pass marketIds and other fields.

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 8 parameters with 0% description coverage in the schema, and the description does not explain any parameter. It fails to clarify that marketIds is required, what the other parameters (like _ak, alt, types) do, or their acceptable values. Without parameter semantics, the user cannot correctly invoke the tool.

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 indicates the tool retrieves exchange back/lay prices and market state, describing it as 'the core odds feed'. It specifies the output structure with nested objects, which helps understand the data. However, it does not explicitly use a verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like betfair_markets_by_event.

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, such as betfair_markets_by_event for listing markets. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The user must infer its specialized purpose from the name and context.

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