tab_match_markets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only describes the output structure but does not mention idempotency, side effects, required permissions, or that it is a read-only operation. The behavior is somewhat transparent but incomplete.

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 concise (two sentences plus an example), with the main action front-loaded. The example adds clarity. Minor critique: the example could be integrated more naturally, but overall efficient.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations. The description provides the return structure but fails to explain any parameters. Given the complexity (3 required fields), this is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds no meaning to the parameters—does not explain what 'match', 'sport', 'competition', or 'jurisdiction' are or how to format them. This is a critical gap.

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 it returns markets, selections, and prices for one match, and contrasts with a 'full match object', implying a sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative sibling (tab_match), which could be clearer.

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 usage for when only market data is needed ('leaner than the full match object'), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name an alternative tool directly.

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