sportsbet_competition_outrights

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

Annotations already set safety expectations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent). The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and a concrete nested return structure, which is useful behavioral context beyond 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, front-loaded with purpose, and includes a structured return example. 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?

Given the single-parameter API, read-only annotations, and the return structure explicitly listed, the description provides sufficient context for invocation. Could mention how to discover competitionId, but not essential for a simple read.

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?

Input schema fully describes the competitionId parameter with type and requirement. Description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool as returning outright/futures events for a competition, with a detailed return structure. Distinguishes from sibling tools like sportsbet_competition_matches by specifying 'outright (futures)'.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance, but the description makes it obvious for fetching futures/outright markets. Implied usage rather than explicit exclusions.

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