entain_racing_racecard

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the exact return envelope, the meaning of price_fluctuations (LAST is the live fixed win price), and auth requirements with and without ENTAIN_REFRESH_TOKEN. 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 front-loaded with purpose, followed by a terse return structure, a concrete example, and an auth note. Every sentence carries information without repetition or filler.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return shape and the critical interpretation of price_fluctuations. It covers invocation via example and auth conditions; minor omissions like error/status semantics keep it from a 5.

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%, so the baseline applies. The description contributes only an example invocation, while id and method are already documented in the schema, so it does not add significant semantic value.

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?

States that the tool returns a full priced racecard for a single race, listing entrants, fixed-odds fluctuations, and form. This is specific about the resource and scope, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling racecard or meeting tools, so differentiation is only implicit.

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 through 'for one race' and the schema's 'Race UUID from the meetings route', suggesting the agent should first fetch a meeting. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over entain_racing_meeting, entain_racing_next_races, or other racecard tools, nor any exclusions.

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