oddsapiio_leagues

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

The description discloses that the response shape is from vendor docs and unverified, which is significant behavioral transparency beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints. It also clearly states the API key requirement, which annotations don't cover. This goes well beyond what the 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 sections for summary, returns, note, example, and auth. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Some redundancy exists ('NEEDS A KEY' vs 'Auth: needs your own key'), but overall it is concise and every section earns its place.

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 simple list tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the approximate return shape, an example, and auth guidance. It adequately covers what an agent needs to invoke this tool, though it lacks explicit error handling or edge-case guidance. The unverified-shape caveat adds important context.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds an example ({"sport": "football"}) but doesn't provide additional meaning about the country parameter or value formats beyond what the schema already states. With full schema coverage, baseline 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 'Leagues within a sport' clearly indicates the tool retrieves leagues for a given sport, and the example with {"sport": "football"} clarifies the input. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' and doesn't differentiate from siblings, but the name and example make the purpose evident.

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: when you need leagues for a sport, supply a sport slug. It doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it, but it does provide an example and notes the auth requirement as a prerequisite. This is adequate but not explicit.

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