sportsbet_graphql_call

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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations: hashes are managed server-side, PERSISTED_QUERY_NOT_FOUND indicates bundle drift, and the token requirements are spelled out. There is 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 compact and well-organized: operation target, hash/error behavior, return type, and auth. Each sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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 generic GraphQL tool with no output schema, the description covers how to discover valid operations, how to handle a specific error, what the return type is, and what authentication is needed. The remaining detail about individual variable shapes is correctly delegated to the referenced catalogue resource.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by pointing to the catalogue resource for valid operation names, noting that variable requirements depend on the operation, and explaining the error listing alternatives. This goes beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 names the exact action and resource: calling Sportsbet's persisted GraphQL operations at a specific endpoint by name and variables. This clearly separates it from domain-specific Sportsbet tools and the similar sibling entain_graphql_call.

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 tells the agent to read sportsbet://graphql/operations for valid operation names and variable signatures, and warns that guessing returns an error with alternatives. Auth behavior is also covered. It doesn't explicitly say 'prefer this only when no dedicated Sportsbet tool exists', but the generic framing makes that clear enough.

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