unibet_kambi_odds_ladder

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, open-world, and idempotent nature. The description adds that no authentication is required and provides the return structure ({name, steps:[{odds, converted}]}), which is useful since no output schema exists.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. It efficiently communicates the core definition, return format, and auth requirements without redundancy.

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 simple read-only reference with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return format and data scope (fractional + decimal ladders). It lacks some detail on field meanings (e.g., 'converted'), but overall is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 already covers everything. The description does not need to add parameter semantics; baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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, explaining that it provides decimal-odds increments. It is specific to the odds-ladder concept and distinct from sibling tools like unibet_kambi_live_stats or unibet_kambi_call.

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 implies use for looking up odds increments or converting odds, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.

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