betr_race_flucs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description supplements these with 'Auth: none needed' and an explicit return structure, adding useful behavioral context without contradicting 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 extremely compact: a one-line purpose, a one-line return shape, and a one-line auth note. Every line is informative and front-loaded, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool, the description is self-sufficient: it explains what is retrieved, the per-runner/per-race scope, the exact return shape (Items/OutcomeId/Flucs/Offset/Price), and auth requirements. Since there is no output schema, the explicitly documented return structure is essential and fully provided.

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 schema fully documents the sole parameter 'EventId' with 'Race event id,' and coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a clear resource and scope: 'Price fluctuation history per runner for one race (fixed-odds movements).' It distinguishes itself from broader racing tools by focusing on per-runner, per-race fluctuation history, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'Get' or 'List.'

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 clearly implies the use case by specifying the data scope: per-runner price fluctuation history for one race, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, stopping short of a 5.

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