unibet_kambi_call

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) already communicate the read-only, idempotent, open-world nature. The description adds valuable behavioral context: default parameters (lang/market/channel_id) are automatically carried, the caller supplies only variable path/query params, and no auth is needed. It also directs to the operation list. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 exceptionally concise: three meaningful sentences plus a terse return and auth note. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers key behavioral details. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 generic dispatch nature, the description covers the essential context: the operation catalogue source, default handling, and auth. With no output schema, it keeps return value description minimal but sufficient. It could be slightly more explicit that response shapes vary by operation, but overall it provides enough for an agent to use the tool correctly after consulting the listed operations.

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% with descriptions for operation, path_params, and query_params. The description adds meaning by stating that defaults are carried and gives examples of variable params (eventId, sport, groupId). It also tells where to find valid operation names, which complements the schema's note about the catalogue. This enriches the bare schema with practical usage context.

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 function: 'Fetch a Unibet/Kambi sportsbook resource by operation name (market AU)'. It specifies the generic dispatcher nature (by operation name), the specific market (AU), and differentiates from sibling tools like unibet_kambi_live_stats and unibet_kambi_odds_ladder which are dedicated operations. The pointer to the operation catalogue further clarifies the resource scope.

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 provides implied usage guidance: 'Read unibet://sport/operations for the operation list' suggests the initial step of selecting an operation. It also notes defaults are carried so caller supplies only variable params. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the dedicated Unibet/Kambi sibling tools, nor any exclusions. This is useful but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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