sportsgameodds_players

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

Annotations already mark it read-only/idempotent; description adds critical caveats: the return shape is unverified from vendor docs, no key is held, and auth is required via SPORTSGAMEODDS_API_KEY. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it doesn't cover rate limits or error behavior.

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 sized and structured: purpose, return shape, verification caveat, example, and auth. Each section adds value, though the JSON return shape block takes up space.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return shape, a usage example, data-verification caveat, and auth requirement. It lacks notes on pagination or empty results, but the combination of annotations and description is sufficient.

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 descriptions are minimal ('Team id.', 'League id.', 'One player.'), but the description adds meaning by explaining playerID's relationship to oddIDs and providing a concrete example with values like 'BUFFALO_BILLS_NFL' and 'NFL'. This helps an agent understand format and usage beyond the schema.

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 identifies this as a tool for player data, linking playerIDs to prop oddIDs, and the return shape confirms it lists player objects. This distinguishes it from sibling sportsgameodds tools like teams or events, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'List' or 'Get'.

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?

It provides context that playerID is the statEntityID half of a prop's oddID, telling agents when to use this to resolve player info from props. The example with leagueID and teamID shows a concrete call pattern, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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