get_event_odds

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output includes devigged fair odds where available, but does not mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. The read-only nature is implicit but not explicit.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists output details. No extraneous words or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the output structure (row per book x market x selection) and key fields. It omits edge cases or error scenarios, but for a straightforward retrieval tool with one param, it is largely 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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter event_id, which is well-described in both schema and description. The description adds minimal extra value by linking to list_events, but does not provide additional nuance or format details.

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 retrieves every sportsbook price for a single event, specifying the output structure and the source of the event ID. It differentiates from siblings like get_odds or get_event by detailing the granularity and fields.

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 instructs to use an event ID from list_events, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools such as get_odds or get_edges. No comparison or exclusions are given.

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