datagolf_outrights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return format and implies read-only nature, but does not disclose data freshness, rate limits, or required permissions. The return structure is helpful but incomplete for full transparency.

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 with two sentences: one describing the resource and one listing the return format. However, the return format is verbose and could be trimmed, but it provides useful structural 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 the absence of output schema, the description includes a return structure, which is helpful. However, it lacks parameter descriptions and usage context. The large set of sibling tools further highlights the need for guidance on when to use this specific 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 0% for the four parameters (tour, market, file_format, odds_format). The description does not mention or explain any of these parameters, leaving agents without guidance on acceptable values or their effects.

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 provides outright odds (win/top-N/make-cut) for the current event across ~13 sportsbooks plus Data Golf's model line. The verb 'Returns' indicates output. It differentiates from other datagolf tools like matchups or in-play.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention that it is for current events only, nor any reference to historical counterparts like datagolf_hist_outrights.

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