parlayapi_best_line

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool aggregates across bookmakers, returns the best price per game/market/side, and describes the returned row shape. It does not discuss rate limits or authentication, but the read-only intent is clearly inferred from 'Find' and 'Returns.'

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, information-dense, and well-structured. It states the purpose, the intended use case, the output shape, and parameter meanings in a few lines, with zero 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 the output schema is present, return-value documentation is handled. The description covers the core behavior, output granularity, parameter semantics, and usage scenario. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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% description coverage, but the description compensates with useful details: a concrete sport_key example ('baseball_mlb'), enumerated market choices (h2h | spreads | totals), and a clear optionality note for bookmakers. It does not specify the exact format for multiple bookmakers, but this is a minor gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find the best (highest) price for each outcome across bookmakers.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from generic odds tools like get_odds by focusing on best-price aggregation and unique per game/market/side rows.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Useful for line-shopping bots.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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