odds_get_event_odds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost model ('Cost = unique markets returned × regions') and the restriction to a single event, which are meaningful behavioral traits. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but the concrete cost and scope disclosures earn a solid 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 with a distinct purpose: what the tool does, how to get the required eventId, and cost implications. There is zero redundancy and all sentences add value.

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?

While the description covers the primary purpose, prerequisite, and cost, it does not explain the return format or any response details, and there is no output schema to compensate. For a 6-parameter tool with no annotations, this is a notable gap, but the cost model and single-event focus provide essential context, so it's above minimal.

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?

The schema description coverage is 67%, and the schema already documents sport, eventId, markets, and regions. The description reinforces the markets flexibility ('any available market') and the eventId source, but adds no new meaning for bookmakers or oddsFormat. With moderate schema coverage and no significant extra parameter details, a 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Get odds for a SINGLE event with any available market', specifying the action, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'SINGLE' and mentioning player props, alternate lines, and period markets, which differentiates it from broader odds tools like odds_get_odds.

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?

It provides a clear prerequisite: 'Use odds_get_events to find event IDs first.' It also implies the single-event scope, which contrasts with potential multi-event sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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