sportsbet_class_coupon

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds non-redundant context by showing the exact return skeleton and disclosing that no API key is required unless SPORTSBET_REFRESH_TOKEN is set. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not mention pagination or rate limits.

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 compact and front-loaded: one line for purpose, one for the return contract, and one for auth requirements. There is no filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the essential details for a one-parameter read-only call: return shape, auth behavior, and class-level scope. It does not explain how to discover classId or describe the contents of nested market objects, but given the simple input and annotations, it is nearly 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 100%, and the schema already describes classId as a required sport class id in the URL path. The description reinforces that the call targets a whole class but adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the resource: a coupon (grouped markets) for a whole sport class, and the Returns line makes the output shape explicit. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieves,' but it is unambiguous and distinguishable from generic sibling tools by its class-level scope.

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 use when you need grouped markets across an entire sport class, and the auth note provides useful operational context (works without a key; token unlocks more). However, it does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so routing guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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