betr_master_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: 'Auth: none needed,' the full response structure, and the fact that each call returns only one market group. This goes beyond annotation coverage.

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, starting with the core purpose, followed by a compact return schema, and ending with auth info. The Returns block is somewhat detailed but valuable given no output schema, and every element earns its place.

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 an output schema, the inline Returns block fully specifies the response shape, and the description covers the input source, group selection, and auth. It omits deep field semantics but is complete for a straightforward read-only tool.

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 schema already explains both parameters well. The description adds minimal extra parameter context (e.g., how MasterEventId is obtained and that GroupLinks drives follow-up calls), but the schema carries the main load.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving one sport match's markets by master event ID, with a specific market-group-per-call design. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the GroupLinks mechanism and the nested Events[].Outcomes[] structure.

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?

It gives clear context on when to use the tool (with a master event ID from a category/SGM feed) and how to navigate market groups (optional GroupTypeCode, default group). It lacks explicit exclusions or naming of alternative sibling tools, but the usage context is solid.

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