sportsbet_graphql_call

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the operational safety is covered. The description adds valuable context: 'Hashes are managed server-side; a PERSISTED_QUERY_NOT_FOUND error means the bundle drifted' and 'Auth: none needed.' No contradiction with 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 three sentences, starting with the action and endpoint, then addressing error behavior, discovery resource, return type, and auth. Each sentence carries distinct information with no filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description's 'Returns: (JSON object)' is minimal but acceptable for a generic GraphQL operation whose response shape varies by operation. It covers operation discovery, error semantics, and auth requirements, but it does not explicitly note that the expected response structure is also documented in the catalogue resource, which is a minor gap.

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 descriptions already cover 100% of parameters, including guidance to consult the catalogue resource for valid names and variable keys. The description adds the specific URI 'sportsbet://graphql/operations' for obtaining the operation list and variable signatures, providing a direct discovery mechanism beyond the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Call any of Sportsbet's persisted GraphQL operations against www.sportsbet.com.au/apigw/sportsbook/graph by name + variables.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling generic-call tools (e.g., entain_graphql_call) by specifying the Sportsbet provider and endpoint.

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?

It implies usage by directing the agent to 'Read sportsbet://graphql/operations for the op list + variable signatures,' which is a prerequisite step. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this generic GraphQL call over dedicated Sportsbet tools (e.g., sportsbet_event_markets) or provide exclusions.

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