odds_get_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a listing (read-only), mentions the absence of quota cost, and specifies the returned data fields. While it does not discuss pagination or error behavior, it covers the essential behavioral traits for a simple list operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every clause adds useful information: scope, return payload, cost transparency, and a pointer to a related tool. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly lists the returned fields (event IDs, teams, commence times). The four parameters are fully documented in the schema. It could mention how 'live' events are handled or whether results are paginated, but for a list tool with high schema coverage, 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all four parameters, including example sport keys and filter semantics. The description adds value by mentioning that sport keys come from odds_get_sports but does not add new parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('upcoming and live events for a sport') and states the outputs ('event IDs, teams, and commence times'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like odds_get_scores and odds_get_historical_events by focusing on upcoming/live event listing.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: to list events for a sport, and explicitly references odds_get_sports for obtaining valid sport keys. It also notes 'Free — no quota cost,' which helps the agent choose it. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like odds_get_odds, but the guidance is sufficient for likely use cases.

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