sportsbet_racing_futures

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds concrete return structure ({futures:[{marketId, name, selections...}]}) and explicitly states no authentication is required. This context goes beyond what annotations provide and helps the agent understand the response shape without overstepping.

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: a one-line purpose statement, followed by a return schema snippet, and an auth note. Every sentence adds value, and no space is wasted.

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 information: what it returns and that no auth is needed. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the inline return shape. It doesn't mention pagination or limits, but for this simple tool, the provided detail is sufficient.

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, and the schema is empty, so parameter descriptions are not needed. The description compensates by documenting the output format in detail, which is the only meaningful semantic for this no-arg call.

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 identifies the resource: racing futures markets, specifically Cup outrights and long-running racing markets. The return format further confirms it returns a list of futures markets. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', and doesn't distinguish itself from similarly named sibling tools like pointsbet_racing_futures or tab_racing_futures_race, though the Sportsbet prefix helps.

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 implies usage when you need racing futures/outrights, and 'Auth: none needed' provides a precondition. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as entain_racing_future_markets or tab_racing_futures_race, nor any mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred or not.

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