betr_master_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the return structure (MasterEvent, Events, GroupLinks), which helps the agent understand the output. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The description adds context beyond the schema but lacks safety or side-effect information.

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 moderately concise. The first sentence effectively states the purpose, but the second sentence is a lengthy enumeration of the return structure. While the structure details are helpful, some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating field names). It could be trimmed without losing essential information.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by detailing the return structure. However, it fails to explain the GroupTypeCode parameter, which is critical for filtering. The context is incomplete for a tool with two parameters and moderate complexity, as the parameter semantics gap undermines completeness.

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 two parameters (MasterEventId required, GroupTypeCode optional) with 0% schema description coverage. The description only explains MasterEventId ('by master event id') and does not explain GroupTypeCode at all, leaving the agent to guess its purpose. Despite listing GroupLinks in the output, the filter parameter is undocumented, which is a significant 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 it returns markets for a sport match by master event id, with a market group per call. It mentions the specific structure (Events, Outcomes, GroupLinks) and notes that GroupLinks names other groups (totals, lines, etc.). This distinguishes it from generic market tools, but could be more explicit about how it differs from siblings 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as betr_market_movers or betfair_markets_by_event. The description implies it is for a single match's grouped markets, but does not state when not to use it or mention prerequisites.

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