get_event_odds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: the complete row set comes back in one call with no pagination, which tells the agent the response can be large. It doesn't cover behavior for unknown/invalid event ids or whether the call is a pure read, leaving minor gaps.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and the no-pagination guarantee. Minor waste in repeating the list_events/sportsbook guidance already present in the schema.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description conveys the return shape (complete set of rows per event, unpaginated), which is the main thing an agent needs. Error/empty-result behavior for a bad event id is the only notable omission.

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 both parameters (event_id and sportsbook) are already documented with examples and sourcing hints. The description restates the same guidance (use list_events, restrict by book) without adding format or edge-case semantics beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (odds) with clear scope: all odds for one event across every covered sportsbook. The scope phrase implicitly contrasts with get_best_odds and get_odds, but it never names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to list_events for the required event_id and explains how to narrow by book via the sportsbook parameter. It stops short of saying when to prefer get_best_odds or get_odds over this full-set tool, so no exclusions are given.

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