parlayapi_get_odds

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

The operation is clearly a read operation ('Get...'), and 'from all configured bookmakers' adds meaningful scope. However, with no annotations, there is no disclosure of rate limits, pagination, data freshness, or other behavioral caveats. The description is not misleading, but it does not go beyond the basic read behavior.

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 starts with a one-sentence purpose and then uses a tight Args block with no filler. Every line adds concrete parameter information, and the format is easy for an agent to scan quickly.

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 is sufficiently complete for a callable tool: all five parameters are explained with examples and value domains, the output schema presumably covers the return shape, and there is no missing critical context for making a correct invocation.

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 0%, so the parameter documentation in the description is critical. It fully compensates: it gives concrete examples for sport_key, lists valid markets and regions, provides optional bookmaker examples, and explains the odds_format choices. Every parameter in the schema is given meaningful guidance.

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 exact operation: 'Get game-level odds for a sport'. It also scopes the tool to all configured bookmakers and identifies the key inputs, making its role easy to distinguish from prop-focused or best-line-focused siblings like parlayapi_get_props or parlayapi_best_line.

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 strongly implies when to use this tool — when game-level odds for one or more configured bookmakers are needed — but it does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer that props, best-lines, or live odds belong to sibling tools.

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