get_moneylines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context: the source board, the exclusion of DFS props, and the default upcoming filter. Still, it says nothing about pagination, authentication, or the shape of the returned odds, so transparency is only partial.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical exclusion and the default-filter clause both earn their 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?

With four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should provide more operational context. It does not clarify how book/limit/offset shape the request, how 'upcoming' is determined, or what fields the response contains, so an agent would need significant schema inference or sibling tools to call it confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters, but it names none of them. There is no explanation of what sport values are accepted, what 'book' means relative to consensus, or how limit/offset affect results.

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 names the exact resource ('Team match moneylines') and source ('consensus lines board'), then explicitly separates it from 'DFS props', which are covered by sibling prop tools. The 'upcoming only by default' clause further narrows the scope, so an agent can tell what this tool returns without opening the schema.

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 DFS props' gives a useful when-not signal, and 'upcoming only by default' indicates when the tool applies. However, no alternative tool is named for DFS props or for past lines, so routing among the many sibling line/prop tools is left mostly to inference.

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