stateedge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions endpoint costs and global coverage, which are helpful. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what happens when invalid parameters are passed. The description adds some value beyond the schema but is not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then structured as a bullet list of endpoints, which is easy to scan. Though it is somewhat lengthy, every sentence provides useful information about available endpoints and costs. It could be more concise but 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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context on how parameters map to endpoints and what outputs to expect. Currently, the description lists endpoints but does not explain how to combine parameters (e.g., which parameters are needed for a specific endpoint). This gap limits the agent's ability to use the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters clearly. The tool description does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it repeats some parameter names but no new semantics. Baseline of 3 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 stateedge as a global sports analytics API, listing specific endpoints (odds, injuries, matchups, etc.) with brief descriptions. This provides a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from sibling tools which are non-sports pulse tools.

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 lists endpoints with costs and brief descriptions but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use stateedge versus sibling tools (which are unrelated domains) or how to select among endpoints for a given query. The sibling differentiation is implicit by domain, but within the tool, no decision support is given.

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