racingandsports_race_odds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the return type (per-runner bookmaker odds) and references the shape used by the form-guide XHR. However, it does not disclose potential errors, data freshness, authorization needs, or side effects, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately follow with parameter source and return type. No redundant information.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: purpose, parameter origin, and return type. However, it lacks explicit details on the return structure (e.g., what 'per-runner bookmaker odds' entails) and error handling, which would make it more complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that 'token' is a per-race token from the form-guide page and that both parameters come from the form-guide view. This goes beyond the schema, which only lists types. It could be improved by specifying the token format or valid ranges for raceId.

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 provides 'Bookmaker odds for one race', which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'racingandsports_todays_racing' by focusing on a single race. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools that might also provide race odds.

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 explains that the tool requires a per-race token issued by the form-guide page, and that raceId and token come from the form-guide view. This gives clear usage context but does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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