sportsbet_racing_resulted_events

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and open-world, so the description only needs to add non-obvious behavior. It adds auth behavior ('works without a key; SPORTSBET_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocks more if set') and a concrete return shape, which are useful beyond the 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?

Four brief sentences cover core purpose, return shape, auth, and routing with no fluff, and the main behavior is front-loaded. The last sentence is terse and slightly cryptic, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 3-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description supplies enough: params, output shape, and auth. It does not explain how to discover competitionId/classId or what happens on empty results, but these are minor given the schema and annotations.

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?

All three parameters are described in the schema at 100% coverage, so the schema already carries the semantic load. The description only echoes 'competition + class + date' without adding type, format, or lookup guidance beyond what is in the schema.

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 first sentence states exactly what the tool returns — resulted races with placings and dividends — scoped by competition, class, and date. It also names pointsbet_racing_race and tab_racing_race, giving an agent a way to distinguish it from closely related racing-race tools without inspecting them.

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 phrase 'Also answers this: pointsbet_racing_race, tab_racing_race' provides a routing hint to run this tool for equivalent requests from other brands. It lacks a formal when-not-to-use statement, but the resulted-races framing and the alternative mapping give enough context for correct selection.

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