sportsbet_sport_card_legacy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond annotations: auth behavior ('works without a key; SPORTSBET_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocks more if set') and the concrete return envelope. It does not disclose failure modes, pagination, or the shape of market entries, but those gaps are minor given the annotation coverage.

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?

Three compact lines, each earning its place: purpose, return shape, and auth. Front-loaded with the core behavior, no filler or redundancy. The structured 'Returns:' and 'Auth:' labels make it scannable for an agent.

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 low-complexity tool (one required param, no output schema, no nested objects, annotations present), the description covers the essentials: what it returns, the return envelope, and auth requirements. The gaps — undefined market element shape and what 'Legacy' means operationally — are real but modest given how thin the interface is.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — the sole parameter eventId is adequately documented as 'Sport event id. Required — part of the URL path.' The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies: schema carries the load and the description neither helps nor hurts.

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?

States a specific resource — a legacy single sport event card — with its content (event + primary markets) and an explicit return shape. The 'single' qualifier helps distinguish it from sportsbet_sports_card, though it never names the sibling it differs from, and 'Legacy' signals age without stating what it was replaced by.

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. With siblings like sportsbet_sports_card, sportsbet_event_markets, and entain_sport_event_card (which likely serves the same event-card purpose for the Entain family), an agent has no basis to choose this tool over those. The 'Legacy' label implies a newer replacement exists but never names it.

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