sportsbet_event_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation (returns data from a finished event) but does not state that it is read-only, mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The return structure is shown, adding moderate transparency.

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 exceptionally concise: one line for purpose and one line for return structure. Every word earns its place, and the return schema is clearly front-loaded in a readable format. No superfluous text.

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 tool's simplicity (single required parameter, no output schema needed), the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does and what it returns. It lacks information on error cases (e.g., nonexistent eventId) and data recency, but for a straightforward lookup 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?

The input schema has a single parameter 'eventId' with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds minimal semantic value by linking it to 'finished sport event', but does not explain how to obtain a valid eventId, its format, or constraints. More context is needed to compensate for the schema's lack of description.

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 'Results for a finished sport event' with specific data: final score and settled markets. It uses a specific verb ('Results') and resource ('finished sport event'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that may return live events or raw market data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggest other tools for similar queries. This forces the agent to rely solely on the tool name and context with no explicit usage direction.

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