get_odds

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the normalization behavior and the output row structure, which is useful. But it does not disclose defaults, edge cases, staleness, pagination, or how filters like live/limit/sportsbook actually affect results.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action and scope; the second explains the output format and its value. Every word contributes to an agent's ability to understand and invoke the tool.

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 gives a solid overview of what is returned, which matters because there is no output schema. However, with 7 optional filter parameters and no annotations, it does not explain default behavior (e.g., if no sportsbook or event is specified), nor why an agent would choose this over sibling odds-focused tools. More usage or filter-relationship guidance would make it complete.

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 71%, so most parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds little parameter-specific meaning; it only clarifies that results are row-per-book, which is output semantics rather than parameter guidance. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'Get normalized odds across sportsbooks.' It further clarifies the output granularity ('one row per book/market/selection'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_best_odds without needing to open their schemas.

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 phrasing 'so prices are directly comparable between books' implies the tool is meant for comparing odds across sportsbooks, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over get_best_odds, get_arbitrage, or other siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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