get_best_lines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that live_only=true (the default) drops started matches and that the tool performs a 'useful operation' rather than returning a raw dump. However, it does not explain what 'edges' means, whether any authentication is needed, how results are returned, or other side effects/transformations.

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 short and front-loaded with the core value proposition before the parameter note. The parenthetical provides useful differentiation without fluff. Minor filler like 'useful operation' could be omitted, but overall it earns its place.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and complex sibling context, the description is not complete. It leaves key questions unanswered: what exactly qualifies as an 'edge', what format sport/market expect, how limit affects results, and what the response shape looks like. The live_only explanation helps but does not compensate for broad gaps.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains live_only clearly but omits sport, market, and limit entirely. This partial coverage is insufficient for an agent to confidently set all parameters, especially since sport is required.

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 identifies the tool as returning 'Top cross-venue edges from /lines', which names a specific resource and operation beyond the generic tool name. It distinguishes itself from a 'raw board dump' and from sibling tools like get_lines and get_lines_history. The term 'edges' is domain jargon but understandable in context.

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 this is the refined, useful variant of /lines, suggesting it should be used when top cross-venue edges are needed rather than the raw board dump. It does not explicitly list alternatives or state when NOT to use it, though the contrast with the raw dump gives some guidance. The live_only parameter behavior is explained, adding practical usage context.

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