isportsapi_football_odds_asian

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds critical context: the payload uses positional arrays, the shape is unverified and approximate, and authentication requires the ISPORTS_API_KEY. This exceeds what annotations 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 well-structured with a lead sentence, a returns section, cautionary notes, and auth. Though a bit long, every sentence earns its place by adding essential warnings about the payload shape and verification status.

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 no output schema, the description takes responsibility for explaining the return format, including the positional array warning. It also covers authentication and the unverified nature of the vendor docs. Still, it lacks a concrete example of the positional arrays and doesn't elaborate on the meaning of each index.

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 covers both parameters with clear descriptions (matchId: 'One match', companyId: 'Odds company id'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description does not add parameter details beyond what is already in the schema.

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 provides Asian-handicap odds across companies and explicitly positions it as the differentiator for this provider. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like isportsapi_football_schedule and apisports_football_odds.

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 'the reason to use this provider' strongly implies this is the default choice for Asian-handicap odds, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like apisports_football_odds. There is no when-not-to-use guidance.

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