Get odds for an event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing data freshness ('when it was last seen') and a consumption cost ('Costs one object'). It stops short of describing pagination, response size, or what happens when no bookmaker prices exist.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the default market scope, then the all_markets expansion, then the cost. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so: prices are decimal, per bookmaker, with a last-seen timestamp. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and full schema coverage on parameters, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: it defines the default market set and clarifies that all_markets pulls in 'every priced market, such as halves and props'. It says nothing extra about the bookmakers filter or the event_id format, which the schema already documents well.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get every bookmaker's current decimal prices for one event') and enumerates the exact market set covered (head to head, line, total). It implicitly separates itself from siblings like best_price and fair_odds by scoping to all bookmakers and raw prices, but it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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?

It tells the agent when to flip all_markets to true (halves and props) and notes the cost ('Costs one object'), which is genuine usage guidance. However it never says when to prefer best_price or fair_odds over this tool, so tool-selection guidance is only implied by scope.

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