pointsbet_racing_races

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

Annotations already declare safe read/idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying 'Auth: none needed' and providing the exact return structure, which helps set expectations. It does not mention error handling or ordering, but the annotations lower the burden.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence, a returns block, and an auth note. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and good annotations, the description covers the core aspects: purpose, return shape, and auth. However, the missing parameter format clarification and lack of explicit differentiation from the single-race sibling tool leave minor gaps in 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?

The tool description does not clarify the 'raceIds' parameter format. The schema description says 'Comma-separated race ids' while the type is 'array', creating ambiguity. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description fails to resolve the contradiction or add any meaningful parameter guidance, so it actually underperforms.

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 the tool returns racecards for multiple races in a single call, using 'batch by race ids'. This distinguishes it from the singular 'pointsbet_racing_race' sibling and conveys the specific resource and batching behavior.

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 implies usage for fetching multiple racecards at once, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., pointsbet_racing_race for a single race) or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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