get_futures_odds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without mentioning whether the tool is read-only, any authentication or permission requirements, potential side effects, or output format. The presence of an output schema is not discussed.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose with examples, and the second gives actionable advice. No unnecessary words; information is front-loaded.

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 there is an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers prerequisite usage and parameter sourcing. However, it lacks details about error handling, performance, or whether the operation is idempotent, which would be beneficial for safe agent invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds cross-tool context by linking tour_id to list_futures' output and mentions the default for future_type. This extra information helps the agent understand parameter dependencies beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'futures odds', and the scope 'for a specific tour', with examples like 'season winner, top finishers'. It distinguishes from sibling tools such as get_moneylines or get_player_props by focusing on futures odds and referencing list_futures.

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 provides explicit prerequisite guidance: 'Use list_futures first to discover available tour IDs.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and how to obtain the required tour_id. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tools cover other bet types.

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