get_settled_results

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It only implies the event must be 'completed', but does not mention error states, auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the event is not yet completed. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 of 7 words, which is very concise. However, it omits important context that could be included without becoming verbose, such as prerequisites or expected output format. It is not overly long, but also not optimally informative.

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 high number of sibling tools and lack of annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'final results/standings' entails, how it differs from other getters, or what constraints apply. An output schema exists but its contents are unknown, and the description does not hint at return structure.

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%, with both 'league' and 'event_id' described. The description adds no extra parameter-specific 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 final results/standings for a completed event. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'final results/standings' with a condition 'completed event'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_event_summary' or 'get_settlement'.

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. For example, it doesn't specify that this should be used after an event is settled, or contrast it with 'get_settlement' which might refer to individual bet settlements.

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