odds_get_event_markets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ('Cost: 1 quota') and states the outcome ('which market keys are available'), which is important behavioral context. However, it does not mention any side effects, limitations, or return format nuances, preventing a higher score.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage guideline, and cost. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler, achieving excellent conciseness.

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 there is no output schema, the description does explain the return value conceptually (market keys per bookmaker). It provides context for when to use it relative to the sibling tool, and mentions the quota cost. It does not elaborate on response structure or edge cases, but for a discovery tool with moderate complexity, this is reasonably complete.

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 50%: only 'sport' and 'eventId' have simple descriptions ('Sport key', 'Event ID'), while 'regions' and 'bookmakers' lack descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond the 'each bookmaker' hint, which only partially explains the 'bookmakers' parameter. This does not compensate for the missing schema information, but the required parameters are at least minimally described.

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 uses a specific verb ('Discover') and clearly states the resource ('market keys available for a specific event from each bookmaker'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'odds_get_event_odds' by explicitly noting its role as a precursor, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use: 'Use this before odds_get_event_odds to know which markets to request.' This provides a clear usage sequence and identifies the alternative tool, fulfilling the when-to-use criteria perfectly.

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