racingandsports_race_odds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds extra context by stating 'Auth: none needed' and that the return shape is served to the form-guide XHR, which goes beyond the structured fields. No contradictions with annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The separation of token dependency, return shape, and auth into distinct lines makes it easy to scan. Every sentence provides useful information with no fluff.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with good annotations and schema descriptions, this description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, parameter source, return shape, and auth. It does not explicitly name the form-guide tool (e.g., racingandsports_todays_racing) or discuss openWorldHint implications, but those are not essential for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are well-documented in the schema (token as per-race access token, raceId as race id). The description reinforces this by repeating that both come from the form-guide view, but it does not add new semantic details beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns bookmaker odds for one race, with the scope explicitly limited to a single race via a per-race token. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like racingandsports_todays_racing by emphasizing the per-race granularity and the token requirement.

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?

It explains the prerequisite (per-race token issued by the form-guide page) and explicitly states that raceId and token come from the form-guide view, giving clear context on when to use it. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the source dependency is clear and actionable.

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