pointsbet_competition_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior (page parameter, nextPage in response) and the return structure. However, it does not mention read-only nature, error handling, or potential failure cases (e.g., invalid competitionKey). The behavioral disclosure is good but not exhaustive.

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 very concise, using three sentences to convey the purpose, return structure, and an example. No extraneous words; every sentence adds value. The structure is front-loaded with the action ('Featured events...') and an immediate example.

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 simple paginated list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, pagination, and an example. Missing details such as source of competitionKey, meaning of insight vs featured markets, or sorting, but overall it provides enough for basic use. More depth could improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains parameters: 'one competition' for competitionKey, and 'paged' with nextPage for page. The example implies usage but does not explicitly describe each parameter's meaning, format, or constraints. Some meaning is added, but not fully clarifying.

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 identifies the tool as returning paged featured events for a specific competition, with insight and featured markets. It distinguishes from siblings like pointsbet_event (single event) and pointsbet_event_search (search) by specifying 'one competition (paged)' and providing an example (AFL competition events, first page).

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., pointsbet_sport_featured_events, pointsbet_event_search). No explicit when/when-not conditions or contexts for use are provided.

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