get_live_odds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that odds are shifting/live and that status can be all|live|prematch, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, rate limits, pagination, data delay, or access requirements. The phrase 'Hobby+' is vague and not particularly informative.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core subject and usage hint. The 'Hobby+' fragment is slightly odd, but overall every sentence earns its place with no real padding.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation coverage, so the description should explain more about what the caller receives. It communicates odds, markets, and match listing, but it does not describe output structure, which sportsbooks are included, or how status affects the response shape. It is adequate for invocation but leaves notable 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no enum definitions, the description adds meaningful parameter guidance: it enumerates status values and explains that omitting game_id lists matches with odds. It does not explain the sport parameter, but sport is self-evident from the schema and tool context.

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 clearly: betting odds and markets across sportsbooks, and it explains that omitting game_id lists matches with odds. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list' and does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_lines, get_moneylines, or get_live_odds_history.

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 offers context about live in-play and pre-match steam moves and gives parameter-level guidance for status and game_id. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_live_odds_history or get_lines, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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