entain_racing_future_markets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: this is a legacy v1 RPC, it returns a specific {status, data:{races:{...}}} envelope, and auth is optional with ENTAIN_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocking more. No contradiction with 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 compact and well-structured: role/identify, return shape, and auth each get their own short section with no filler. The return-shape block is useful because there is no output schema, so it earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with zero required parameters and fully documented schema, the description is complete enough: it covers what the tool returns and its auth behavior. It could clarify what 'unlocks more' means, but this is a minor gap given the annotations and schema coverage.

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 100%: both 'method' and 'exclude' are already documented in the schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 the tool as a 'Legacy v1 racing RPC selector' for the 'future-markets races feed,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling racing tools like entain_racing_next_races or sportsbet_racing_futures. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list,' but the stated return shape and feed name make the operation clear.

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 gives clear context: it is a legacy v1 future-markets racing feed and works without a key, with an optional token unlocking more data. It does not explicitly name excluded alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'Legacy v1' and 'future-markets' framing is enough to guide selection among the large sibling set.

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