pointsbet_racing_srm

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. The description adds valuable context: returns availability only when open ('availability + legs/prices when open'), shows the return fields, and notes 'Auth: none needed.' This goes beyond the annotations and adds operational detail without contradiction.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a return format line, an auth line, and an alternatives line. All sentences earn their place and critical information is front-loaded. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description lists the return fields and explains the conditional availability. It covers auth, scope, and sibling relationships. For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema description covers the only parameter (raceId) with 'Race id. Required — part of the URL path.' The tool description does not add extra meaning for the parameter beyond implying it's tied to the specific race. Given 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 the tool's purpose: 'Same Race Multi (SRM) market for one race (availability + legs/prices when open).' This uses a specific resource (SRM market) and scope (one race), and includes the return structure. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pointsbet_racing_races (multiple races) and sportsbet_racing_popular_srms by explicitly noting it's for a single race and mentioning it can answer for those siblings.

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 provides clear context: it's for one race and requires no auth. It also names alternative tools ('Also answers this: entain_graphql_call, sportsbet_racing_popular_srms'), which helps an agent consider substitution. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or direct to alternatives for multiple races, so it's not a perfect 5.

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