unibet_kambi_odds_ladder

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns data but does not discuss any behavioral aspects like caching, frequency of updates, or that it is a read-only operation. However, given the simplicity and zero parameters, the risk of misunderstanding is low.

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 extremely concise, using only two sentences to convey essential information. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides a clear specification of the return format.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return structure with a JSON-like notation. While it could be more explicit about the meaning of 'converted', it is sufficient for an experienced 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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by outlining the return structure, which compensates for the lack of output schema. It meets the baseline expectation for no-parameter tools.

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 identifies the tool as a Kambi odds-ladder reference, specifying that it returns decimal-odds increments. The purpose is well-defined and distinct from sibling tools like `unibet_kambi_call` which perform different tasks.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is preferred.

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