get_odds_event_list

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool returns (events with markets and outcome probabilities) and implies pagination via the limit note, but it omits details about sorting, cursor usage, data freshness, or any potential side effects. The tool is likely read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 at two sentences, front-loading the core action and key parameters, with no redundant information.

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 lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return type. It covers pagination constraints but does not detail cursor usage for pagination, which is partially addressed by the schema. Overall, it provides adequate context for a list tool with multiple optional filters.

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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by directing users to a sibling tool for valid category values and reinforcing the limit constraint. This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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 lists prediction market events, with optional filters by category, platform, and status. It mentions the return type (events with markets and outcome probabilities) and directs users to a sibling tool for category values, aiding differentiation.

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 guidance to use get_odds_categories for valid category values and notes the maximum limit of 50 per page. However, it does not specify when to use alternative sibling tools like get_prediction_event_detail for more detailed event information.

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