get_edges

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

With no annotations, the description fully informs behavior: it returns edge percentages, fair value source, per-book odds, and pagination. It implies a read-only, filtering operation with no destructive side effects. Clear enough for safe selection.

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?

Single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists filters efficiently. No superfluous words; every phrase adds value.

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 tool with 6 parameters (all described in schema) and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and how to use filters. Lacks detail on output format (e.g., sort order) but mentions key returned fields, making it complete enough for most use cases.

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 the description adds little beyond restating filter options. It lists filter categories but no new semantic details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'SportWizzard's edge finder: DFS/book offers that are +EV versus the devigged fair market'. It specifies the verb (find edges), resource (offers), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on +EV edges rather than raw odds or arbitrage.

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 description lists filters (league, source, min edge, event, pagination) implying when to use, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_odds or get_arbitrage. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites.

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