sportsbet_racing_multis_events

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether data is live/cached. It only states the return structure and ordering, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and ordering, second shows return format. No wasted words; front-loaded critical information.

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?

While simple, the description lacks context on concepts like 'racing multis' and does not mention whether the feed filters or paginates. However, for a parameterless tool returning a list, it provides the essential return fields, making it mostly adequate.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the ordering (next-to-jump) and return format, which is sufficient for a tool with zero parameters.

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 states it returns events for racing multis, ordered by start time (next-to-jump style). The verb 'Events available' and specific resource 'racing multis' differentiate it from siblings like sportsbet_racecard which returns single race details.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sportsbet_racing_allracing or sportsbet_racing_event_meeting. The description only states what it does, not the appropriate context or exclusions.

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