get_live_odds_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Audit log' implicitly signals a read-only historical operation and 'Hobby+' hints at an access tier constraint, which is useful, but the description does not disclose return shape, update cadence, data delay relative to live games, pagination, or behavior when the match has no recorded movements.

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 highly compact at two sentences and twelve words, with the core purpose front-loaded before the 'Hobby+' tag. It earns its words, though the trailing 'Hobby+' fragment is cryptic and the terseness tips toward under-specification in the dimensions above.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool this is minimal but not adequate: with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is never told what an audit-log entry looks like (timestamps, odds before/after, bookmaker names, event types), nor what 'Hobby+' actually requires, nor how this differs from get_lines_history. The agent could invoke it correctly but would be guessing at result interpretation.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description names no parameters explicitly. 'For one match' weakly implies game_id identifies the match within the sport's context, but there is no guidance on accepted value formats for sport, how to obtain a valid game_id (e.g., from get_matches or get_live_games), or whether the tool can accept league codes versus names.

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 a specific resource — an audit log of in-game odds shifts and line movements scoped to one match — which is concrete and more specific than a generic listing. However, the verb is only implied ('audit log of' rather than 'retrieves'), and it does not explicitly differentiate from closely named siblings like get_lines_history or get_history_tape.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. With roughly 47 siblings including get_live_odds, get_lines_history, and get_history_tape, an agent has no stated basis for deciding which history tool fits, and must infer that 'live' implies in-game context.

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