entain_event_market_rules

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying the return shape and clarifying auth behavior—keyless access with optional deeper access via ENTAIN_REFRESH_TOKEN.

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?

Three compact lines: scope, return shape, auth. Each sentence carries distinct information with no filler, and the most important statement is front-loaded.

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 no-input, no-output-schema read-only call, the description is complete: it states what is returned, the structure, and authentication requirements. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema cannot be ambiguous and the description doesn't need to document inputs. It still helps by noting that results are indexed by rule id, which explains how a caller references returned rules.

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 identifies a distinct resource—settlement rules for named markets, indexed by rule id—which separates it from sibling tools like entain_event_market_type_groups. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the intent is unambiguous.

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 first sentence implies the use case: consult this tool when settlement rules by rule id are needed. However, it names no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, leaving an agent to infer which sibling tools might be more appropriate.

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