sportsgameodds_stats

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses that the response shape is from vendor docs, unverified against live response, and approximate. It also mentions the auth requirement (SPORTSGAMEODDS_API_KEY). This adds significant behavioral context and manages expectations about data reliability, exceeding what annotations provide.

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 and front-loaded: purpose, return shape, usage warning, verification caveat, example, and auth note. Each sentence contributes unique information with no redundancy. The format uses clear sections and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 the single optional parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description fully carries the context. It provides the return shape, an example call, a warning about unverified vendor shape, and auth requirements. An agent would be well-equipped to decide when and how to call this 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with the description 'League id.' The description adds an example with 'leagueID: "NFL"' and contextualizes it as 'NFL statistics', which helps the agent understand how to populate the parameter. This extra example goes beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 the tool as a catalogue of statIDs that form the first segment of prop oddIDs, and returns the shape with statID, name, leagueID, and entityType. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sportsgameodds_leagues or sportsgameodds_teams, which serve different 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 explicitly instructs to 'Read this before constructing prop filters' and warns that guessing statIDs leads to empty results. This gives a clear when-to-use directive. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions where this tool should not be used, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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