get_odds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose read-only behavior, rate limits, error handling, or side effects, leaving the agent without critical behavioral information.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds information (market types list and alias mapping) without 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no annotations, the description is somewhat minimal. It explains market_type well but lacks guidance on league/event_id sources or expected behavior for optional parameters. Output schema exists, so return format is not required.

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%, but the description adds value by enumerating valid market_type values and their aliases, which goes beyond the schema's brief 'Market type (see above).'

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 odds for a specific market type on an event, using a verb+resource structure that distinguishes it from sibling tools that are more specific (e.g., get_moneylines, get_totals).

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 a list of API oddType values and friendly aliases, guiding the user on what market types are supported. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_moneylines or get_matchups.

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