sportsbet_racing_megabets

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, removing the safety-disclosure burden. The description adds genuine value beyond annotations: it documents the exact return shape ({megabets:[{id, legs:[...], price:{winPrice}]}) and the auth behavior ('works without a key; SPORTSBET_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocks more if set'), which is operationally useful context an agent would otherwise not know.

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?

Four tight segments — definition, return shape, auth note — with no padding. The core concept is front-loaded first, and every line earns its place without repeating annotations or schema trivia.

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 0-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, this is essentially complete: it states what the tool returns (including nested field names), confirms it requires no auth key, and notes the enrichment behavior. The inline return shape is essential here since no output schema exists, and it is present. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and there is nothing to explain about argument semantics. The schema coverage is vacuously 100%, and the description wisely spends its space on the return structure instead, which is the only input-independent information an agent needs.

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 a specific resource (Racing Megabets) and unpacks the concept in parentheses ('large multi suggestions across races'), so the purpose is concretely stated. It is distinguishble from single-race and non-multi racing tools, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the similarly-scoped sportsbet_racing_multis_events sibling, and the fetching verb is only implied by 'Returns:'.

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 use case is implied — an agent can infer it is for large multi-race bet suggestions — but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over overlapping siblings like sportsbet_racing_multis_events, sportsbet_racing_best_bets, or sportsbet_racing_popular_srms. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided, so an agent must guess based on the parenthetical.

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