pointsbet_event

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses critical behaviors: the misleading nature of enableCorrelatedMulti, the significance of sgmCollisionGroups for overwriting families, the semantic of sgmStatus, and the repetition of outcome keys. It also provides an output sample and size estimate, giving agents a clear behavioral model.

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 lengthy but every section carries value: purpose, output sample, size warning, SGM ID explanation, and auth. It is well-organized with a clear hierarchy, though the caps-lock emphasis could be softened. The length is justified for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity, the description is remarkably complete: it explains return structure, SGM leg identification, collision groups, eligibility traps, and performance concerns. The single parameter is well-documented, and the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 only parameter, eventKey, is fully described in the schema with type, example, and provenance. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, but schema coverage is 100%, so 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 clearly states 'Full event detail: all fixed-odds markets + selections + prices, SGM, team stats, insights.' This specifies the resource (event) and the comprehensive contents, distinguishing it from event search or SGM pricing tools. The verb 'returns' is implied, and the scope is explicit.

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?

Description warns about the large payload ('82 markets and ~4MB') and advises asking for only needed markets, implicitly discouraging full retrieval when unnecessary. It explicitly directs users to this tool as the source of SGM leg IDs for pointsbet_sgm_price. However, it does not name alternative tools for partial market retrieval, leaving some ambiguity.

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