Games Get Futures

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 no behavioral detail beyond that - no notes on coverage of bookmakers, freshness of odds, or result size - so it neither harms nor enriches the annotation set.

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 with a parenthetical enumeration of market types; no filler. Slightly terse given the unstated parameter formats, but structurally clean.

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, no parameter documentation in the schema, and only safety annotations, the definition omits what an agent needs: valid sport/league identifiers, season format, and any sense of the returned market structure. Adequate for identification, incomplete for 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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for sport, league, and season semantics, yet it explains none of them - not the accepted league values, nor the season format (year vs season string). Only 'season futures' hints loosely at the season parameter.

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 specific verb and resource ('Fetch season futures betting markets') and enumerates what it covers (championship odds, conference champions, win totals), which separates it from games_get_event_odds. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'season futures' implies when the tool applies versus per-event odds, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as games_get_event_odds. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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