theoddsapi_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent hints, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the response shape includes no bookmakers, the shape is unverified from vendor docs and should be inspected, auth via THE_ODDS_API_KEY is required, and the call costs no quota. These go beyond the structured annotations and inform the agent of important caveats.

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 labeled sections: purpose, return shape, caveat note, example, and auth. Each sentence earns its place. It is slightly longer due to the unverified-shape warning, but that is necessary context. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple list endpoint with 2 params and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, return shape, example usage, auth requirement, and a critical caveat about unverified data. The annotations handle safety and idempotency, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example ('{"sport": "soccer_epl"}') and repeats that sport is a sport_key, but does not add new semantics beyond the schema. It doesn't describe valid sport_key values or further explain dateFormat.

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?

States clearly: 'Upcoming events for a competition WITHOUT odds.' This gives a specific verb+resource+scope and differentiates from sibling odds tools (e.g., theoddsapi_odds) by explicitly excluding odds. The example 'Upcoming EPL fixtures' further clarifies the intended use.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Free — costs no quota — so use it to find event ids cheaply.' This explains the primary use case and implies when-not-to-use (when odds are needed, since it says WITHOUT odds). It lacks a named alternative but gives clear context and a specific motivation.

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