betfair_market_prices

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. The description adds that no auth is needed and shows the full return structure, but doesn't mention rate limits or error behavior. With annotations, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Includes a compact summary, return structure, example, and auth note without excess. The return structure is verbose but useful given no output schema. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Provides return shape, example, and auth requirement, covering the essentials for a read-only data fetch. Does not explain pagination or caveats, but for a simple price feed with full schema descriptions, this is adequate.

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 has 100% coverage, but the description's example shows marketIds as a comma-separated string while the schema declares it as an array—a contradictory signal. This could mislead the agent into passing the wrong type.

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?

Clearly states it returns exchange back/lay prices and market state for one or more markets, positioning it as the core odds feed. Distinguishes from siblings like betfair_scores or betfair_event_details through its focus on prices/state.

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?

Implied usage as the core odds feed suggests primary use for odds data, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool names. The example illustrates invocation but doesn't provide decision guidance.

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