odds.prematch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'normalizzate' (normalized) and 'lista bookmaker' (bookmaker list), hinting at data formatting and sources, but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, rate limits, error handling, or output structure. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Italian that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though some might argue it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., odds format, bookmaker list structure) or behavioral aspects like data freshness or limitations, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'match_id' documented as 'Fixture id di API-Football'. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Quote pre-match (1X2, Over/Under 2.5, BTTS) normalizzate con lista bookmaker.' It specifies the verb ('Quote') and resource (pre-match odds for specific bet types), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'match.snapshot' or 'value.detect'. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'match.snapshot' and 'value.detect', the lack of usage guidelines leaves the agent uncertain about tool selection.

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