entain_racing_future_markets

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the return structure in detail, including nested objects and fields. However, it omits important behaviors like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the tool is read-only, or side effects. The return format is helpful but insufficient 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 brief—two sentences plus a return example. It avoids superfluous information. However, the first sentence uses jargon ('Legacy v1 racing RPC selector') that may confuse some users, slightly reducing clarity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should compensate but does not. It explains the return structure but lacks crucial context: what the tool does beyond 'selector', how to use parameters, error scenarios, and links to related tools. This leaves significant gaps for effective use.

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 two parameters (method, exclude) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain their purpose or expected values. 'method' defaults to 'future-markets' but its role is unclear; 'exclude' is entirely unexplained. Without parameter documentation, the tool is hard to use correctly.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Legacy v1 racing RPC selector' for 'future-markets races feed', specifying it returns race names and start times. This distinguishes it from other entain racing tools like entain_racing_meeting or entain_racing_next_races, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as entain_racing_search or similar future-markets tools from other providers. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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