pointsbet_racing_race

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

With no annotations, the description reveals that results/dividends appear only after the race is run, indicating temporal behavior. However, it does not disclose any destructive actions, rate limits, authentication needs, or error states (e.g., invalid raceId or pre-race calls). This is adequate but incomplete.

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: two sentences defining the tool's purpose and a clear return structure. No filler or redundant information. The key information is 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?

While the return structure is provided (compensating for no output schema), the description lacks details on edge cases (e.g., race not found, unraced status), prerequisites, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., pointsbet_racing_races to obtain raceId). Adequate for a simple tool but not 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the single parameter 'raceId' (e.g., its source, format, or typical values). The return object includes raceId but that does not clarify the input. The agent is left to guess how to obtain a valid raceId.

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 it provides a full racecard for one race including runners, prices, track conditions, and results/dividends after the race. The structured return example distinguishes it from sibling tools like pointsbet_racing_races (list) and pointsbet_racing_meeting (meeting-level).

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 alternatives (e.g., pointsbet_racing_form, pointsbet_racing_meeting). No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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