unibet_kambi_call

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavior beyond those: auth works without a key, UNIBET_ACCESS_TOKEN unlocks more, and an operation catalogue resource exists. It does not contradict the annotations and enriches the safety profile with concrete auth and discovery behavior.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and organized into short useful sections: operation lookup, return type, and auth. Every sentence contributes practical guidance, and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 generic passthrough tool, the description covers the essential context: how to discover valid operations, what defaults are handled, what the caller supplies, the return type, and auth requirements. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the operation catalogue pointer and the generic 'JSON object' return statement.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning with concrete examples of variable params (eventId, sport, groupId) and explains that lang/market/channel_id defaults are already carried, helping the agent understand which params actually need to be supplied.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Fetch a Unibet/Kambi sportsbook resource by operation name (market AU).' The generic nature is conveyed by 'by operation name', which distinguishes it from specialized sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrasting behavior.

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 gives clear context: defaults are carried, the caller only supplies variable path/query params, and the operation list should be read from 'unibet://sport/operations'. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives, but the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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