entain_sport_event_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes the output shape and gives an example, which is helpful, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has rate limits, requires authentication, or any side effects. The return format is partially transparent.

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 extremely concise with three short lines: a clear purpose, a list of returned keys, and a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words. It is well-structured with the most important information first.

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 the tool's complexity (complete event card with multiple nested objects) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a basic structure but lacks details about each key's content, data range, or usage patterns. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description does not add any meaning to the single parameter 'id'. The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description fails to clarify what 'id' refers to (e.g., event ID, sport ID). It only vaguely ties to 'one sport event', but does not explain how to obtain the id.

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 also lists the output structure. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'entain_sport_event_request' or other event detail tools, so it's not a perfect 5.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or cases where another tool should be used. For a comprehensive tool, this is a notable gap.

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