sportsgameodds_events

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, detailing the exact return shape, the nested odds object keyed by oddID, and the two-level byBookmaker dictionary. It also warns that the shape is unverified and should be treated as approximate, and explains authentication needs. This adds significant context the annotations don't cover.

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 moderately long but each section earns its place: purpose, return shape, caveat, example, and auth. The structure is logical and front-loaded, though the return shape block is dense and could be slightly reorganized for scannability.

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 no output schema, the description fully compensates by specifying the return structure, nested dictionaries, pagination via nextCursor, and the unverified nature of the vendor docs. It also covers authorization and provides a concrete example, making it complete for a complex, read-only odds tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example combining leagueID and oddsAvailable, which provides some practical context, but it doesn't add detailed semantics per parameter beyond what the schema already gives.

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 returns 'Events with their odds attached, including player props' and calls it 'The main tool here,' which differentiates it from sibling sportsgameodds tools and other odds providers. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 positions this as the primary events-with-odds tool for the provider and includes an example with leagueID and oddsAvailable to show typical usage. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to prefer alternative tools or any exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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