parlayapi_list_sports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It makes the read-only 'list' nature and the key-format convention clear, but it does not explain how active_only affects the result, whether inactive sports are included, or whether responses are paginated.

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 short and front-loaded: purpose first, usage context second, and representative examples last. Every sentence earns its place, and nothing is wasted.

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?

For a simple one-optional-parameter list tool with an output schema, this is mostly complete: the agent understands the return resource and how to use its result later. It still lacks guidance on the active_only parameter and on how this tool relates to parlayapi_live_sports, so some agent misunderstanding remains possible.

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%, and the description does not mention the active_only parameter at all. The parameter's name and default in the schema hint at its purpose, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation or explain when to pass false.

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: 'List available sport keys' and adds concrete examples of the expected key format. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list-like tools such as parlayapi_live_sports.

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 line 'Use these in subsequent calls' gives clear context for when the tool should be used: early in a workflow to obtain sport keys for later calls such as odds, props, or pricing. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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