sportsbet_trending_sgm

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

The description adds useful context by stating 'Auth: none needed' and providing a return structure, which builds on the read-only and idempotent annotations. However, it doesn't disclose potential limitations like data freshness, pagination, or the meaning of 'trending,' so it provides moderate transparency beyond the 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 extremely concise, with three short sentences covering purpose, return shape, and authentication requirements. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no redundant information.

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 parameter, the description is largely complete: it explains the resource, scope, return structure, and auth. It could optionally mention that 'trending' data may change (openWorldHint), but the annotation already covers that, so the description suffices.

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 already describes 'id' as 'Sport event id,' and the description does not add any further semantic detail. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies, as no additional parameter context or examples are provided.

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 provides 'Trending Same Game Multi (SGM) combinations for one sport event,' identifying the resource and scope. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools such as sportsbet_event_markets, so it stops short of the highest rating.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it returns, with no mention of suitable use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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