cricket_get_live_odds

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

The description discloses that it requires an API key and returns a clean error envelope if missing. Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about external source and caching behavior (meta.source). No contradictions.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. It is concise but includes necessary details. A minor deduction for slight verbosity in the parameter explanation, but overall efficient.

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 that an output schema exists (context confirms), the description still provides the return structure explicitly. It covers input, output, error handling, and source. Complete for an AI agent to use 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?

The only parameter 'team' is thoroughly explained in the description: case-insensitive substring matching against both sides, and the limitation that CricAPI match_id cannot be used due to opaque event ids. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which already included the same description.

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 it returns live market head-to-head odds for IPL matches. It uses specific verb 'Return' and resource 'live market head-to-head odds', distinguishing it from siblings like cricket_get_live_matches or football_get_odds.

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 explains when to use it (for IPL odds) and mentions the requirement of THEODDS_KEY. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context from sibling tools and the specific IPL focus make usage clear.

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