list_futures

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

Annotations already cover safety and world-openness, but the description adds real behavioral context: it requires an eligible Ultra plan and uses opaque cursor pagination. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent predict authorization and iteration behavior.

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, information-dense sentences. Each sentence carries scoping, exclusion, operational requirements, and pagination without fluff.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, this covers the critical agent needs: what it lists, what it does not handle, access requirement, and pagination. It does not mention return shape, but that's acceptable with no output schema and simple list semantics.

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 coverage is 33% — only market_ids and affiliate_ids have descriptions. The description mentions futures page and cursor pagination, which helps with cursor, but leaves sport_id, limit, and include_settled unexplained in prose. Existing schema defaults compensate partially.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('futures competition page' scoped by sport). It explicitly separates itself from dated event discovery, which is enough to distinguish it from list_events and other list tools.

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?

It gives clear when-not-to-use guidance ('do not use for dated event discovery') and warns against treating partial pages as complete. It does not name sibling tools explicitly, but the exclusions semantically route to list_events.

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