tab_racing_futures_race

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

The description discloses the read-only nature via annotations (readOnlyHint), and adds that it works without auth but can unlock more with keys. It also specifies the return structure, providing transparency about expected output. It does not contradict any annotations.

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, covering purpose, return structure, and auth in a few sentences without unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 there is no output schema, the description provides the return shape in text, which is adequate. It gives context about futures markets and why this tool exists. It lacks info on error handling or edge cases but is complete for the tool's core functionality.

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?

All parameters are well described in the schema (date, raceName, raceType, fixedOdds, jurisdiction, venueMnemonic). The description reinforces the key parameter raceName by explaining the naming convention. It adds value by clarifying the race slot usage, though it does not elaborate on parameter constraints 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 states the tool's purpose: retrieving a racecard for a single futures market. It distinguishes itself from tab_racing_race by explaining the naming convention (race name vs. integer) and explicitly mentions it cannot be reached by that tool.

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 when dealing with futures races identified by name, contrasting with the integer-based tab_racing_race. It also mentions auth requirements, giving context for when additional credentials might be needed. While not an explicit step-by-step usage guide, it provides enough situational guidance.

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