sportsbet_event_markets

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return structure but does not mention rate limits, failure modes, or whether the data is live every call. The description is partially transparent but lacks depth for a tool with no behavioral 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 concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose, the second shows return structure. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential information: what the tool returns and its structure. It could mention error handling or data freshness, but it is complete enough for a simple retrieval tool.

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 sole parameter 'eventId' is not described beyond its type in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain what the parameter represents (e.g., 'The unique identifier for the sport event'). It adds no semantic value.

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 'All markets + selections + live prices for one sport event', using a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('markets + selections + live prices'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it's for one event's markets, not other related functions like results or status.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools like sportsbet_class_coupon or sportsbet_event_results might be preferred.

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