odds_get_historical_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds useful behavioral context: 'Cost: 1 quota' and 'PAID PLANS ONLY' indicate cost and access restrictions. The phrase 'as they appeared' also implies snapshot semantics. However, it does not mention rate limits, response format, or data retention.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus two short clauses for cost and plan restriction. Every phrase earns its place, and the core action is front-loaded.

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 core purpose is clear, the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain the optional filter parameters (eventIds, commenceTimeTo, commenceTimeFrom) or hint at the response structure. For a moderately complex tool, this leaves notable gaps.

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 coverage is only 40% (sport and date have descriptions, eventIds, commenceTimeTo, commenceTimeFrom do not). The description elaborates on the 'date' parameter by calling it a 'historical timestamp', but it fails to give any meaning to the three undocumented optional parameters. With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate more.

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 'List events as they appeared at a historical timestamp', which specifies the verb, resource, and temporal scope. It also explicitly frames the use case ('Use to find event IDs for historical event odds'), distinguishing it from current-event tools like odds_get_events and other historical odds tools.

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 phrase 'Use to find event IDs for historical event odds' provides a clear scenario for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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