oddsapiio_sports

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that no API key is required, that the tool is verified live, and that the response shape is unverified and approximate per vendor documentation. This is valuable transparency about reliability and return format.

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 mostly front-loaded with the key point, but includes some redundancy: 'VERIFIED live — works without a key' appears twice, and the caveat note is a bit verbose. Still, it's compact enough.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers purpose, return shape with an example, authentication requirement, and a reliability caveat. It's fully self-contained.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty; the description correctly doesn't address parameters. There is nothing to add because no parameters exist, so this is a non-issue.

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 lists the 34 sports with their slugs, and explicitly notes that every other tool needs these slugs, distinguishing it from sibling tools. The return example makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It states the tool works without a key, implying it can be used as a prerequisite for other OddsAPI tools that need slugs. It doesn't name specific alternatives but gives clear context on when to use it.

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