odds_get_historical_odds

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 adds valuable context beyond the name: cost formula ('Cost: 10 × markets × regions'), plan restriction ('PAID PLANS ONLY'), and data availability/interval specifics. These are meaningful behavioral traits. It does not mention potential errors or response format, but the cost and plan info are significant.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, followed by availability data, then cost/plan constraints. It front-loads the main action and uses every sentence productively, without any fluff 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?

For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key contextual aspects: purpose, availability, cost, and access restriction. It doesn't describe the return structure, but the name and purpose imply a snapshot of odds. Given the moderate complexity, the description is fairly complete, though it could benefit from a brief note on response format and sibling alternatives.

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 (33%), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'markets' and 'regions' only in the cost formula, giving some indirect meaning. However, it does not explain the other parameters (bookmakers, oddsFormat) or provide details on valid values, formats, or relationships. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool's function: 'Get a snapshot of odds at a specific historical timestamp'. It uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('snapshot of odds'), and a specific qualifier ('historical timestamp'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like odds_get_odds (current odds) and odds_get_historical_events, making the 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?

The description implies usage for historical odds with the phrase 'historical timestamp' and provides availability constraints ('from June 2020, 5-min intervals from Sep 2022'). It also states a prerequisite ('PAID PLANS ONLY'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like odds_get_odds for current odds, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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