Sportsbook mainlines (keyless)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context — no API key and no credit cost, which matters in a catalog where other tools presumably consume credits — but says nothing about refresh cadence, whether prices are current or cached, or rate limits.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler: the first front-loads what the data is and where it comes from, the second carries the auth/cost caveat. Nothing is redundant with the title beyond the minimum needed to be self-contained.

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 all parameters optional and no output schema, the description is the only place an agent could learn the shape of a returned row (what fields accompany a price, whether games are grouped, whether lines include both sides). It stops at 'prices per game,' leaving that gap open, which is adequate but incomplete for a data-retrieval tool.

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%, so league, limit and task are fully documented in the schema itself, including the enum values and the 200-row cap. The description adds no meaning beyond that; the correct baseline here is 3.

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 names a specific resource (DraftKings Sportsbook moneyline, spread and total prices per game) with enough detail that an agent knows it returns odds lines rather than, say, event metadata or line-movement history. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near neighbors such as get_sportsbook_events or get_odds, so it falls 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?

'No key needed, no credits' implies this is the zero-cost/zero-auth path and is the closest thing to when-to-use guidance in the definition. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over siblings that also return odds, nor any exclusion conditions, so usage must be inferred.

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