entain_sport_event_request

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds transparency by disclosing the exact return structure (events, markets, prices, entrants, next_events, regions) and explicitly stating 'Auth: none needed'. This is useful behavioral context beyond the 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 extremely concise: the main purpose is in one sentence, followed by a compact return structure and auth note. Every piece of information earns its place, with no wasted words. The formatting is clean and scannable.

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?

The tool has one parameter and no output schema, but the description covers the purpose, the accepted input, the return keys, and authentication. It doesn't describe the nested structure of the return objects, which would be helpful but is not strictly necessary for a single-parameter bulk fetch tool. Given the lack of an output schema, listing top-level keys adds meaningful completeness.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter category_ids as a JSON array of sport category UUIDs (100% coverage). The description adds only that it accepts 'one or more' categories, which is implied by the schema. No additional parameter meaning is provided, so a 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 what the tool does: it fetches bulk events, markets, and prices for one or more sport categories. It names the specific resource (sport categories) and the content type (events, markets, prices), and distinguishes itself from narrower sibling tools like entain_sport_event_card by emphasizing the bulk scope.

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 provides clear context: use this for bulk data across one or more sport categories. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for single events use entain_sport_event_card'), but the bulk scope is evident enough to guide selection among the many sports data siblings.

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