odds_get_historical_event_odds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: cost formula ('Cost: 10 × markets × regions'), plan requirement ('PAID PLANS ONLY'), and a feature limitation ('player props (available after 2023-05-03)'). This goes beyond basic purpose, though it does not mention response format or error handling.

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 serving a distinct purpose: stating the core function, noting market support and a date constraint, and providing cost/plan information. There is no redundancy or filler; every sentence adds useful information.

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?

The description covers purpose, cost, plan restrictions, and market support, which is adequate for a historical-odds retrieval tool. Lacking an output schema and annotations, it could add more on response format or limitations, but given its straightforward nature and clear sibling distinctions, it 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 low (43%) with descriptions only for `date`, `sport`, and `eventId`. The description adds semantic value by explaining cost scaling related to `markets` and `regions`, and by noting that 'all markets' including player props are supported (relevant to `markets`). It does not explain `bookmakers` or `oddsFormat`, but `oddsFormat` has an enum in the schema, providing some self-documentation.

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 historical odds for a SINGLE event at a specific timestamp,' specifying the verb, resource, and scope. 'SINGLE event' differentiates it from `odds_get_historical_odds` which likely handles multiple events, and 'specific timestamp' distinguishes it from current-odds tools like `odds_get_event_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?

The description implicitly guides usage by emphasizing 'SINGLE event' and 'specific timestamp,' indicating when this tool is appropriate (historical odds for one event at a precise time). It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the emphasis on single event offers enough contextual guidance. 'PAID PLANS ONLY' also signals access requirements.

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