get_ev

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: opportunities include a de-vigged fairProbability field and the tool requires a Pro plan. However, it omits other behavioral details such as output shape, pagination, defaults, or whether filtering is required, so it is only partially transparent.

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 definition is tight and front-loaded: the main purpose is in the first sentence, followed by a clarifying field explanation and the access requirement. No sentence is wasted, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite having five optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several siblings, the description only explains the core concept and the fairProbability field. It does not specify how the filter parameters behave, what the response looks like, or how this tool relates to alternatives, leaving too much for the agent to infer.

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 only 20%, and the description adds virtually no parameter-level meaning. The tool description does not explain limit, sport, league, sportsbook, or min_ev beyond what the schema already provides for one parameter. Since the description must compensate for poor schema coverage and does not, this is a significant gap.

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 identifies the tool's job: finding +EV bets, with a specific definition ('prices that beat the fair probability implied by the wider market'). It is more specific than a tautology and the +EV concept separates it from siblings like get_arbitrage or get_best_odds, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 only usage-related note is the Pro plan requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention when to use this tool versus get_odds, get_best_odds, or get_arbitrage, and provides no exclusions.

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