Get Tournament Odds

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds behavioral context: odds are 'illustrative' and 'aggregated from major bookmakers', implying they are not real-time and represent a composite. This adds value beyond annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's main purpose, followed by a concise list of categories. No unnecessary words, and each sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 should at least hint at the return structure (e.g., list of odds entries). It mentions 'illustrative odds' but doesn't specify format or whether it's a single object or array. For a simple 2-param tool, it's adequate but not fully complete.

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%, but the description adds meaning by linking the 'group' parameter to 'group-by-group predictions' and enumerating category values in context. This helps the agent understand the relationship between parameters and the tool's categories.

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 returns FIFA World Cup 2026 betting odds and predictions, listing specific categories like winner, golden boot, groups, and dark horses. It is unique among sibling tools, which focus on teams, matches, schedules, etc., so no confusion.

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 implies usage for obtaining betting odds and predictions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_standings or get_matches. No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool references are provided.

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