pointsbet_racing_tips

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It indicates the return structure and that results are for today, but fails to disclose edge cases, authentication requirements, or limitations (e.g., what happens if no tips 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 brief and front-loaded, conveying the core functionality in two sentences plus a return structure example. It is concise, though including the full return structure inline adds some verbosity.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description partially explains the tool but lacks details on parameter validation, error conditions, or data coverage. It is sufficient for simple use but incomplete for robust agent understanding.

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 has two required parameters with no descriptions or enums (0% coverage). The description loosely equates 'racing code' to racingType and gives an example (Australian thoroughbred), but does not define valid values or formats for either parameter.

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 retrieves tipster selections for a given racing code and country, for today, grouped by venue. It includes an example (Australian thoroughbred tips) that disambiguates its purpose from other 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?

The description implies usage for obtaining tipster selections but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like pointsbet_racing_form or pointsbet_racing_meetings. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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