Stored sportsbook odds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the upstream provenance (DraftKings data relayed via ESPN), the staleness-control behavior of fresh_only, and a cost signal of one credit per successful call. It stops short of describing result shape or what an empty/failed call looks like.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the freshness knob and the cost. The opening is a fragment ('DraftKings (via ESPN) stored game odds by league and market'), which reads awkwardly but is still efficient and wastes nothing.

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 six optional parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the definition is under-specified for an agent to call it reliably. It never covers pagination behavior (limit/offset), what happens when no rows match, or whether fresh_only=false returns historical rows — all of which matter for a zero-required-param 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 0% across six parameters, so the description must carry the explanatory burden, and it only explains fresh_only. The sport and market enums are self-evident, but limit, offset, and event_id get no guidance on pagination bounds or how event_id interacts with the other filters.

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 verb (retrieves stored odds), the resource (game odds), the source (DraftKings via ESPN), and the two filter axes (league, market). That is enough to separate it from sibling tools like get_fanduel_markets or get_pickem_lines, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_odds_board or get_sandbox_odds.

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 statement of when to prefer this over get_odds_board, get_sandbox_odds, or get_fanduel_markets, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only usage hint is the fresh_only tip, which guides a parameter rather than tool selection, so an agent must infer the stored-vs-live boundary on its own.

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