entain_racing_racecard

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It details the return structure including the price_fluctuations format (list of floats with last as live price). This adds behavioral context beyond a simple 'returns racecard'. However, it omits potential side effects, auth needs, or error handling.

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 front-loaded with a summary, followed by a structured return object and an example note. The return object is detailed but slightly verbose; could be more concise. Overall efficient with minimal waste.

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 two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the output structure but fails to document input parameters. This leaves a significant gap for the agent to correctly invoke the 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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters (id, method). It only describes the output. With no parameter documentation in either schema or description, the agent has no guidance on how to correctly populate inputs.

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 a 'full priced racecard for one race' with entrants, fixed-odds fluctuations, and form. It distinguishes from sibling tools like entain_racing_meeting (meeting-level) and entain_racing_search (search across races). The verb and resource are specific.

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 implies use for a single race via 'for one race' but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or exclude other tools. No guidance on prerequisites or context is provided.

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