sportsbet_racing_resulted_events

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It indicates the tool returns data (placings, dividends) but does not explicitly state it is read-only, mention authentication needs, or describe any side effects. The return format is included, but not enough to fully compensate for missing 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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and required inputs, the second shows the return format. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers inputs and outputs, including the return structure. For a simple query tool without an output schema, this is largely sufficient. However, it could be improved by clarifying that 'resulted races' means past events, and by noting any limitations like number of events returned or data freshness.

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 description maps the three parameters to 'racing competition + class + date', adding context beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain what classId represents, the expected date format, or how competitionId is structured. With 0% schema description coverage, more detail would be beneficial.

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 the tool returns resulted races with placings and dividends for a given competition, class, and date. It provides the return structure, making its purpose unambiguous. It differentiates from sibling tools like sportsbet_racecard by focusing on resulted races.

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 for retrieving resulted races but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sportsbet_racecard or sportsbet_event_results. No 'when not to use' or alternative tool names are mentioned, which is a gap given the large sibling set.

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