unibet_kambi_odds_ladder

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context by showing the return shape, noting that the top-level array contains fractional and decimal ladders, and clarifying auth behavior (works without a key; UNIBET_ACCESS_TOKEN unlocks more).

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 and well-structured, with the core purpose stated first, followed by return format and auth details. Every sentence provides useful information without repetition or filler.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned, including the array structure and the presence of fractional and decimal ladders. It could add example values or clarify the 'converted' field, but the essentials are covered.

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, so the schema provides no parameter documentation burden. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 applies.

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 and specifies the decimal-odds increments the book uses. It is distinct from siblings like unibet_kambi_live_stats and unibet_kambi_call, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself by name.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use when odds-ladder information is needed, but it does not state exclusions or mention sibling tools that might be more appropriate.

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