sportsbet_competition_outrights

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and open-world, and the description adds useful non-obvious behavior: auth works without a key, a refresh token unlocks more data, and the exact return structure is given. There is no contradiction with the 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 compact and well structured: purpose first, then return shape, then auth behavior. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundant schema repetition.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the data shape and auth requirements. It does not explain how to find a valid competitionId or detail pagination, but for such a simple interface this is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 single parameter is fully described in the schema (integer, required, URL path component), so the description does not need to re-explain it. The return-shape text provides some indirect context on how the parameter is used but does not add meaningful semantics beyond the 100%-coverage schema.

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 as outright/futures events for a sport competition and gives the return shape, so an agent can tell it apart from match- or event-level tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'Gets' or 'Lists', but the purpose is still unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention sibling alternatives such as sportsbet_competition_matches or sportsbet_event_markets, and the 'Outright (futures)' wording only implies the use case rather than stating it.

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