entain_racing_racecard

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict any of these. It adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating the exact return structure, noting that the last element in price_fluctuations is the live fixed win price, and stating that no auth is needed. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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: a one-line summary, a return-type breakdown, a concrete example, and an auth note. Every sentence is informative and the most critical information appears first, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description compensates by detailing the nested return keys (races, markets, prices, entrants, price_fluctuations, meetings) and providing an example. It also mentions the auth requirement and the origin of the id. It does not cover error conditions or edge cases, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for the required 'id' (Race UUID from the meetings route) and the optional 'method' (with default 'racecard'). The description's example reinforces the id format but does not add semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 opens with 'Full priced racecard for one race — entrants, fixed-odds fluctuations, form,' which clearly identifies the tool as providing a comprehensive racecard for a single race. This distinguishes it from meeting-level tools like entain_racing_meeting and search tools like entain_racing_search, and the specific content areas make its purpose unmistakable.

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 usage for a single race via the 'one race' phrasing and the example, and the schema hints that the ID comes from the meetings route. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling racecard tools (e.g., sportsbet_racecard, betr_race) or when not to use it. This is a clear gap compared to tools that name alternatives directly.

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