pointsbet_racing_futures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses the return format but does not mention safety (read-only), authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior when no events are available.

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 two sentences and includes the return format. Every sentence is necessary and there is no wasted content. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 return format is partially described, but there is no information on filtering, sorting, pagination, or what constitutes a 'futures market'. The description is minimal and could be more complete for a tool with zero parameters.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivial. The description adds value by specifying the return structure (events with key, name, competitionName, startsAt), which compensates for the lack of an output 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?

Description clearly states it returns racing futures markets, specifically Cup/Carnival outrights and long-running racing markets. The verb 'returns' and resource 'racing futures markets' are specific. Among siblings, the inclusion of 'pointsbet' and focus on futures distinguishes it from general racing tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like pointsbet_racing_race or racing futures from other providers. The description does not indicate that it is for long-term markets only or exclude it for short-term bets.

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