pointsbet_sport_featured_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention any safety or side effects (e.g., read-only, auth needs, rate limits), leaving the agent uninformed about potential risks or constraints.

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 plus a return schema line. It is front-loaded with the purpose. One could argue it could be more structured, but it avoids unnecessary 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the return schema is provided, giving some context about the output. However, the description omits the meaning of fields like 'competitionKey' or 'startsAt', and lacks behavioral context (e.g., whether the result is cached or real-time).

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 input schema has one parameter 'sportKey' with no description. The tool description does not explain what sportKey is, where to find its valid values, or how it affects the output. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives zero guidance on how to use the 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 it returns 'Featured (highlighted) events for one sport' and specifies that these are event headers, not markets. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'pointsbet_event' by explicitly suggesting to call that for markets.

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 a clear usage hint by saying 'call pointsbet_event for markets', implying this tool is only for event headers. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other similar tools like 'pointsbet_competition_events'.

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