sportsbet_sports_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions the tool returns either a full card or resulted event if finished, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not describe the effect of optional boolean parameters (e.g., includeIncidents, includeCommentary) or any side effects, rate limits, or auth needs. The return format is partially shown but lacks full transparency.

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: two sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes a clear return format example. 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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description should thoroughly explain the tool's behavior. It provides an output example but fails to document the optional parameters or clarify how the inclusion flags modify the response. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, meaning the description must explain parameters. It only implicitly refers to eventId (required) in the return example. The five optional boolean parameters (includeIncidents, includeAllMarkets, includeCommentary, includeScoreboard, includeTopMarkets) are not described at all, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and impact.

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 it returns a 'Full sport event card (all markets + selections) or the resulted event if finished.' The verb 'returns' and resource 'event card' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like entain_sport_event_card or sportsbet_sport_card_legacy, so clarity is good but not perfect.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sportsbet_event_markets or entain_sport_event_card). There is no discussion of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description implies it is for getting event details with all markets, but fails to specify use cases or limitations.

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