pointsbet_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the return structure but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool with no annotations.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and a snippet of the return structure. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 no output schema, the description provides a representative return structure covering key fields. However, it does not explain all possible fields, error scenarios, or the meaning of the parameter. Still, it is reasonably complete for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 has 0% description coverage and the tool description does not explain the eventKey parameter, its meaning, or how to obtain it. The return structure implies the parameter is used, but no semantic addition is made beyond 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 that this tool returns 'full event detail' including fixed-odds markets, selections, prices, SGM, team stats, and insights. It specifies the resource (event) and the scope of data returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pointsbet_event_search or pointsbet_competition_events.

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 implicitly indicates use for retrieving detailed event data, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context (e.g., needing an event key). The purpose is clear, but usage instructions are absent.

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