get_upcoming_odds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the default time limit behavior, which is a useful non-obvious trait. However, it does not describe the response structure, data source, or whether odds are raw or normalized, leaving behavioral expectations incomplete for a read tool.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with a short parenthetical for the key default behavior. Every word contributes value, with no repetition or fluff.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the returned odds data looks like or how it relates to sibling tools such as get_processed_odds. The schema provides adequate parameter details, but the overall context for selecting and interpreting the result is incomplete, especially given the optional time-range parameters that could broaden the default 'today' scope.

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 input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions and defaults, giving 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, merely restating the time-window behavior in prose rather than enriching any specific parameter.

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 uses a specific action ('Get') and resource ('upcoming odds for sports events'), making the core purpose obvious. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_processed_odds or get_today_mlb, but the 'upcoming' and generic sports scope imply a distinct function.

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 phrase 'limited to today by default' provides some contextual usage guidance, and the schema defaults reinforce the intended time window. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_processed_odds or get_event_consensus, so the usage guidance remains mostly implicit.

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