entain_racing_future_markets

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld. The description adds useful context about auth ('Auth: none needed') and legacy status ('Legacy v1'), but does not elaborate on other behavioral traits such as data volume, pagination, or deprecated status risks.

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 concise, containing three short lines that state the type, return format, and auth requirement. There is no fluff or redundant content, and the structure is clean with each line serving a distinct purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with only two optional parameters and no output schema, and the description provides the return structure and auth. However, it lacks a high-level purpose statement and usage context, making it only marginally complete for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.

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 100% description coverage for both parameters, with detailed descriptions for 'method' and 'exclude'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, 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 'Legacy v1 racing RPC selector (future-markets races feed)' provides a noun 'selector' rather than a clear action verb like 'list' or 'get'. It identifies the resource as future-markets races but does not clearly state what the tool does or how it relates to sibling tools such as entain_racing_racecard or entain_racing_next_races.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no help in choosing this over other racing feed tools.

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