football_get_odds

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

The description usefully discloses the THEODDS_KEY requirement, the ALL_SOURCES_FAILED envelope, and cache/stale source metadata. However, it claims 'Omit to return every WC event,' which contradicts the openWorldHint=true annotation that responses may not be exhaustive. This is an annotation contradiction.

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 Args and Returns sections and front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately sized, though the team parameter text is repeated from the schema, a mild redundancy.

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 covers authentication, failure behavior, parameter use, and return shape, which is generally strong for a simple read-only tool. However, the conflict with openWorldHint=true means it is misleading about completeness, and the description does not acknowledge that the response may not include every World Cup event.

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 100%: the schema already explains the team parameter as an optional case-insensitive substring matched against both sides. The description's Args section duplicates this rather than adding new semantic meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action, resource, and scope: returning live market head-to-head 1X2 odds for upcoming World Cup 2026 matches. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like football_get_fixtures or football_match_predictor.

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 context is clear: use this tool for live head-to-head odds on World Cup 2026 matches, with an optional team filter. It documents when to omit the team parameter, but it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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