sportsbet_trending_sgm

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it works without a key and that a refresh token 'unlocks more', and it documents the return payload. No contradiction with 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?

The description is compact and well-structured: purpose first, then return shape, then auth. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description adequately covers what it does, what input is expected, what the output looks like, and auth requirements. It could be more complete by explaining how to source the event id, but nothing essential is missing for a basic call.

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 schema already fully documents the only parameter (`id` as 'Sport event id.') with 100% coverage. The description reinforces that this id refers to one sport event but adds no additional meaning about id format, source, or how to obtain it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('Trending Same Game Multi (SGM) combinations') and its scope ('for one sport event'). It adds a return shape that reinforces what the tool provides. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like sportsbet_sgm_price, though 'trending' implies a different use case.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use notes. The auth note is operationally useful but does not help an agent choose this tool over sportsbet_sgm_price or other SGM pricing tools.

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