unibet_racing_call

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: server-side sha256 persistence, the PERSISTED_QUERY_NOT_FOUND failure mode, eventKey identifier format, and auth behavior. These details meaningfully help an agent anticipate outcomes even though readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already cover safety.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the core action before covering errors, identifiers, resource discovery, returns, and auth. The 'Returns: (JSON object)' line is minimal but low-cost; the overall structure is well organized.

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 open-ended, any-operation nature of the tool and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it names the endpoint, explains how to discover operations, defines identifier format, covers auth, and warns about drift errors. An agent has what it needs to use this correctly.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds useful complementary meaning by explaining eventKey structure and directing the agent to the catalogue for operation-specific variable signatures.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Call any of Unibet's persisted racing GraphQL operations' against a named endpoint. It distinguishes itself from sibling GraphQL-call tools like unibet_kambi_call by scoping to racing and persisted operations.

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 clearly scopes the tool to persisted racing GraphQL operations and tells the agent to read unibet://racing/operations for the op list and variable signatures. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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