unibet_racing_call

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the GraphQL execution, server-side hash, and error condition (PERSISTED_QUERY_NOT_FOUND). However, it does not mention mutability, safety, authentication needs, or idempotency, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 a single, efficient paragraph with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides critical details (hash, error, eventKey format) and a reference for further info. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

The description covers the tool's mechanism, error handling, and an example of input format. It references an external resource for the full operation list. However, it lacks details on the output structure beyond 'Returns: (JSON object)', which is vague given no output schema.

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 schema has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'operation' as the operation name and 'variables' as the variables, and gives an example of an eventKey format. It directs users to an external source for full details. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 purpose: calling any of Unibet's persisted racing GraphQL operations by name and variables, with the specific endpoint provided. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'unibet_kambi_call' by specifying 'racing' and 'Unibet', making its domain unambiguous.

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 advises reading 'unibet://racing/operations' for the list of operations and variable signatures, which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., unibet_kambi_call for sports) or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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