racing_best_odds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the output (best price per runner and bookmaker) and scope (upcoming Australian races), but lacks detail on data sources, edge cases (e.g., no races found), or any other behavioral nuances. It is clear it is a read-only lookup, but adds only basic context.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose in the first sentence and following with two practical example queries. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

For a simple query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main outputs (best price and bookmaker), the scope (upcoming Australian races), and example usage. It does not describe return format, but the examples and clear purpose make it sufficient for most agent interactions. Minor gaps include handling of multiple categories or bookmaker restrictions, which are covered by the schema.

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%, so the input schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds context about the tool's intent (best price) but does not enrich the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: providing 'the single best available price for each runner in upcoming Australian races' and the offering bookmaker. It distinguishes itself from a full-comparison tool by saying 'Use this when the user wants the best price rather than a full comparison across every book,' which sets it apart from siblings like get_best_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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use this when the user wants the best price rather than a full comparison across every book.' It also provides concrete example phrasings ('where is the best odds on <horse>', 'best price in the next race'), making it easy for an agent to recognize relevant user requests.

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