pointsbet_racing_srm

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only discloses that legs/prices depend on market openness. It does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or any potential side effects, leaving the agent uncertain about behavior.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing parameter details or return fields.

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 and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the semantics of 'legs' or 'availabilityTimeUtc', nor does it cover error cases or where to obtain raceId. The context signals indicate a simple tool, but more detail is needed for safe usage.

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 single parameter (raceId) is not elaborated in the description beyond implying it identifies a race. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds no semantic value over the input schema, which only specifies it is an integer.

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 is for the Same Race Multi (SRM) market for a single race, specifying the return structure. It is distinct from sibling tools like pointsbet_racing_race or pointsbet_racing_form, which focus on different aspects.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use pointsbet_racing_race or other racing tools). The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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