sportsbet_sport_card_legacy

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by explicitly stating 'Auth: none needed' and outlining the return shape. This goes beyond what annotations provide and helps set expectations for the response format.

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 extremely concise, using just two short sentences plus a small code block for the return structure. Every element earns its place: the resource type, the payload shape, and the auth requirement. No filler or redundant content.

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 simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It provides the return structure, which substitutes for an output schema, and confirms no authentication is needed. The main gap is the vague term 'primary markets' and the lack of clarification on whether 'legacy' implies deprecation or behavioral differences.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'eventId' parameter, including a description that it is required and part of the URL path. The tool description reinforces the use of eventId in the return object but does not add any new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource as a 'Legacy single sport event card' that returns an event and primary markets. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', the return structure '{event:{...}, markets:[]}' clearly indicates a retrieval operation. The word 'Legacy' and 'single' help distinguish it from plural card endpoints in the sibling list.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool over alternatives. The word 'Legacy' hints that a newer version may exist, but no alternative tool is named, and no conditions or exclusion criteria are stated. The description does not explain scenarios where this endpoint is preferred.

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