puntersedge_sports

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

Adds value beyond the annotations: a 1-credit cost, the top-level array shape, the 404 failure mode, and an honest caveat that the documented shape is unverified against a live response. The verification caveat is unusually valuable, though it slightly undercuts the return-shape claim rather than resolving it.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the cost, followed by the shape and the caveat in a coherent order. The verification disclaimer and racing reiteration add length, but each sentence carries real information for an agent.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, its top-level type, the credit cost, auth requirement (PUNTERSEDGE_API_KEY), and the failure mode. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description instead documents the return payload's fields (key, title, group, active), which is useful but is output rather than input semantics.

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?

States a specific resource (the sports catalogue of sport_keys accepted by the odds tools) and its exact contents (key, title, group). Explicitly carves itself apart from the racing siblings by naming the category it does not cover.

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?

'Start here' gives an unambiguous entry-point directive, and the racing exclusion plus the 404 consequence ('passing horse-racing to the odds tools returns 404') routes the agent to the puntersedge.racing tools. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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