get_sports_odds

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

With no annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral limitation: bookmaker coverage varies widely (as few as 1 bookmaker on some competitions) and instructs the agent to report the number of books rather than implying full market. It does not address other behaviors like response structure, pagination, or error handling.

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?

Three sentences with each earning its place: purpose, usage examples, and a caveat. High signal-to-noise ratio and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 omits how odds are returned (e.g., a list of games versus a single event), and the example 'odds for the <team> game' implies event-level filtering that the schema does not support (only sport_key). Without an output schema, the agent lacks guidance on response shape. The thin-coverage caveat is helpful but not sufficient.

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?

All five parameters are fully described in the schema with examples and defaults, so the description adds little parameter-level detail. It does reinforce the concept of 'from every bookmaker' relevant to the bookmakers parameter, but the baseline 3 applies because the schema already carries the load.

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 the tool returns head-to-head and other market odds for a single sport from all covering bookmakers, with concrete example queries. It distinguishes itself from racing tools by noting that sports coverage is thinner.

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?

Provides explicit use-case examples ('odds for the <team> game', 'who is favourite in the NRL tonight') and implies this is for sports rather than racing. However, it does not name sibling tools or explicitly state when to prefer racing_best_odds or get_best_odds.

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