tab_racing_futures_race

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns a racecard and specifies the output structure, indicating it is a read-only fetch operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or any other behavioral traits beyond basic functionality.

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?

Description is brief and front-loaded, with two sentences conveying the essential purpose and return format. No redundant words, but could be slightly more structured with explicit parameter mentions.

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 tool's complexity (futures racecard with differentiation from normal races), the description covers the core purpose and return structure. However, without output schema, it provides the return format but lacks complete parameter explanations and usage details, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. The description mentions that raceName is derived from the URL but does not explain the other parameters (date, raceType, fixedOdds, jurisdiction, venueMnemonic). It adds some context about the race name but insufficient detail for correct parameter usage.

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?

Description clearly states it provides a racecard for FUTURES markets and explains why this tool is needed (futures URLs use the race name instead of a number, which the integer-typed tab_racing_race cannot handle). This effectively differentiates it from its sibling 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?

Description indicates that this tool is for futures markets where the race name is used, implying it should be used when tab_racing_race is not applicable. While not explicitly listing when-not-to-use, the context and mention of the sibling tool provide clear guidance.

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