get_exactas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. While 'Get odds' implies a read-only operation, there is no explicit statement about safety (e.g., no side effects, no mutations), authorization needs, rate limits, or other behavioral characteristics. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for this lack of transparency.

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 sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose with no fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place without excess words.

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 that output schema exists to describe return values, the description is minimally complete for a simple tool. However, due to the lack of annotations (0), the description should provide more behavioral context and usage guidance to compensate, which is missing.

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 each parameter adequately described (e.g., 'n' says 'Combination size (2, 3, or 4). Default 2.'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so 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 tool retrieves exacta combination odds for an event, specifying the domain as racing/field sports. The verb 'Get' with the resource 'exacta combination odds' is specific, and the scope distinguishes it from generic odds tools like get_odds, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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 such as get_odds, get_all_markets, or get_matchups. The description does not specify prerequisites, contexts where exacta odds are relevant, or when not to use this tool.

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