Games Get Event Odds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the data categories and the ESPN Core API source, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or coverage of sportsbooks — a modest addition.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and lists the returned data types. Efficient and easy to scan, though the trailing 'via ESPN Core API' is minor filler.

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 usefully enumerates the returned data types. But for a 4-parameter tool at 50% schema coverage, it leaves key parameters (notably event_id and competition_id) unexplained, so it is only adequate.

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 only 50%, and event_id and competition_id are effectively undocumented (competition_id appears in neither schema nor description). The description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a clear verb (Fetch) and resource (sports betting odds) plus the specific data types returned (point spreads, over/under, moneylines). However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling games_get_futures, which is also odds-related, leaving potential ambiguity for an agent choosing between them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closest alternative (games_get_futures for future/prop odds). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and resource type.

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