sportsbet_sport_card_legacy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only describes the return structure but does not state that it is read-only, whether authentication is needed, or any side effects. The phrase 'legacy' hints at deprecation but is not explicit.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose, which is good for conciseness. However, it lacks essential details about parameters and behavior, making it too sparse to be fully effective.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter input and lack of output schema, the description should be more complete. It does not define 'primary markets', the structure of the markets array, or how to interpret the event data. The return format snippet is helpful but insufficient.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify the parameter meaning. It only mentions eventId in the return structure but does not explain its role or how to obtain it. The input parameter eventId is left completely unexplained beyond its name and type.

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 a single sport event card with primary markets, specifying the verb 'returns' and the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like sportsbet_sports_card or sportsbet_event_markets, lacking sibling contrast.

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 vs alternatives. Among siblings, there are similar tools (e.g., sportsbet_sports_card, sportsbet_event_markets) but the description gives no selection criteria, prerequisites, or limitations.

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