get_lines_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it usefully discloses that the data is opening/closing (historical) and not live in-play, which clarifies what the tool does not provide. However, it omits access requirements (beyond the cryptic 'Builder+'), return format, and any side-effect or rate-limit caveats.

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 subject, which is good, but 'Builder+.' and 'Not live in-play steam' are cryptic fragments that add little clarity and contain a likely typo. It is concise without being well-structured enough to be a model of clarity.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, an agent needs more detail about parameter values and return shape. The description gives only the match-identifier hint and the non-live exclusion, leaving book, market, sport, and response semantics unspecified.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters, but it only hints that match_id can be a match slug or kr_match_id. The required sport and optional book/market parameters are not explained at all; 'team mainlines' vaguely relates to market but not enough to choose values.

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 resource (team mainlines for a match) and the historical nature implied by 'Opening and closing' and the tool name, so an agent can infer this is a line-history lookup. It is not a pure tautology and has an identifiable subject, but 'Builder+' and the unclear 'steam' wording keep it from being a crisp, sibling-differentiating statement.

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?

'Not live in-play steam' gives a single exclusion warning, implying the tool is for historical rather than live data, but it never names alternatives such as get_live_odds_history or states when to prefer get_lines/get_best_lines. No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided.

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