get_best_odds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavioral trait (returns single best price and bookmaker per selection), which is useful context beyond the schema. It doesn't mention details like return format or pagination, but for a simple read-only tool this is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence states the output, the second provides usage guidance. Front-loaded and 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?

With a single required parameter fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (best price and bookmaker per selection). It could add more detail about selection scope (e.g., all selections for the sport), but is largely complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already covers the sole parameter 'sport_key' with a description and example, giving 100% coverage. The description adds only 'for one sport', which reinforces but doesn't meaningfully extend the schema's meaning. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('get') and clearly states the tool returns 'the single best price per selection for one sport' and 'which bookmaker offers it'. It distinguishes from alternatives by contrasting with 'every book's 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 explicitly says 'Use when the user wants the best available price rather than every book's line', providing a clear use case. It implies when-not but doesn't name a specific alternative tool, so a slight deduction from 5.

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