sportsgameodds_sports

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

The description discloses the unverified nature of the return shape, advises the agent to inspect the actual payload, and states the auth key requirement. These add valuable context beyond the read-only annotations, showing strong transparency about data reliability.

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 well-structured with separate sections for purpose, return shape, note, example, and auth. Each section adds necessary value, and the main message is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Given that this is a simple parameterless lookup tool, the description provides a full picture: it explains the purpose, the return shape (even if approximate), an example, auth requirements, and a reliability caveat. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description explains that the output contains sportID values that other tools filter on, which gives meaningful context to the response. It doesn't need to explain parameter details since none exist.

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 that the tool returns the sports covered and that the sportID field is used by other tools for filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sportsgameodds_leagues or sportsgameodds_events, which have their own specific resources.

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 implies that this tool should be used to discover the sportID values needed for other sportsgameodds tools, and it provides an example. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls 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.