oddsapiio_odds

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses that the response shape is unverified from vendor docs, that bookmakers are keyed by name rather than a list, and that a personal key is required. This is substantial behavioral context that helps the agent avoid misinterpreting the response.

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-organized with clear sections: purpose, return shape, verification note, example, and auth. The vendor-doc disclaimer adds necessary length, but the content is focused and each sentence serves a purpose.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return shape and auth requirements. It warns about unverified fields, which is critical. However, it lacks guidance on how to obtain the eventId (though the schema references oddsapiio_events) and does not mention potential errors.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (eventId, markets, bookmakers), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond showing eventId in the example, which is redundant with 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 returns odds for one event across indexed bookmakers, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on a single event, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 for retrieving odds for a specific event and notes the key requirement, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives. The example shows the required eventId but no direction on optional filters.

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