entain_sport_event_card

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that by documenting the return shape and the auth requirement: no key is required, and ENTAIN_REFRESH_TOKEN provides additional access. 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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and structured into Returns, Example, and Auth sections. Every sentence contributes practical information with no 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?

With only one required parameter, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It documents the return object shape, gives a concrete example, and explains auth behavior, which is enough for an agent to invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the id parameter as a bare sport event UUID. The NBA example reinforces the expected input format but does not add substantial semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool returns a complete event card with every market, selection, and price for one sport event. It defines a specific resource and scope, but it does not explicitly name or distinguish sibling tools such as entain_sport_event_request or entain_event_market_rules.

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 phrase 'complete event card' implies the tool is for fetching the full set of markets, selections, and prices for a single event. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives mentioned, and no exclusions to help an agent choose between this and closely related Entain tools.

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