betr_pop_sgm_bet_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (PopSGMBetItems with legs/price) and explicitly confirms no authentication is needed, which is useful behavioral context beyond the 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 (three short sections) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, return structure, and auth requirement. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly showing the return format. It covers the essential usage context (one master event, no auth) and the parameter schema is complete. Minor gaps like pagination or sorting behavior are not critical for a simple 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters (SortOrder, CategoryId, MasterEventId). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Popular Same Game Multi suggestions for one master event', which is a specific resource and scope. It also provides the return structure, distinguishing it from sibling tools like betr_pop_sgm_category that may target categories rather than master 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?

It clearly indicates this is for a single master event, implying you need a MasterEventId, and states 'Auth: none needed.' While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools, the context is clear and actionable.

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