sportsbet_racing_futures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds valuable auth behavior: it works without a key and SPORTSBET_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocks more if set. It does not detail rate limits or what 'more' means, but for a parameterless read-only tool this is reasonable.

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 front-loaded: scope, return shape, then auth. Every sentence adds distinct information, and the return-shape and auth details are high-value for an agent deciding whether and how to call the tool.

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 parameterless read-only tool, the description covers the essential invocation facts: what is returned, the return structure, and auth requirements. It is slightly vague about what the refresh token 'unlocks' and does not mention freshness or market coverage, but the provided output shape compensates for the missing output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no argument semantics for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps, and it does not add irrelevant parameter noise.

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 identifies the resource as 'Racing futures markets (Cup outrights and other long-running racing markets)' and shows the return shape, so an agent can tell this is a racing-futures listing tool. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'fetch', but the meaning is unambiguous and the parenthetical adds useful specificity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as pointsbet_racing_futures, tab_racing_futures_meetings, or entain_racing_future_markets. No exclusions or alternative-selection conditions are provided; usage is only implied by the category name.

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