theoddsapi_historical_odds

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds critical behavioral details: the response is wrapped in a snapshot envelope with timestamp fields, the free tier returns 401/422, and the payload shape is unverified and approximate. This is transparent and manages expectations about reliability.

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 a clear opening purpose, a return-shape section, an important caveat, a concrete example, and an auth note. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core concept. It is appropriately sized for a tool with this complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return envelope and references the sibling odds shape. It also covers paid-tier restrictions, unverified data caveat, and authentication requirement. The example further anchors the parameter usage, making the tool fully understandable for an agent.

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 descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example showing how 'sport', 'date', 'regions', and 'markets' combine, which further clarifies usage. Since the schema fully documents semantics, the example is a modest but real enhancement.

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 this tool returns 'Odds as they stood at a past timestamp' and positions it as the 'paid-tier time machine for CLV work.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling live call by noting the 'snapshot envelope, unlike the live call,' so the purpose is specific and differentiated.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use it (past-timestamp queries, CLV work) and notes the paid-tier requirement with free-tier error codes. It implies the alternative is the live call (theoddsapi_odds) by contrasting the response shape, though it does not explicitly name other tools or state when NOT to use it.

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