odds_get_odds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (bookmaker odds for specified markets/regions) and the cost behavior (quota calculation). But it omits other behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination, or whether filters override each other, leaving some ambiguity.

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 front-loaded with the main action. Four short sentences deliver purpose, scope, primary usage, and cost without any 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (8 parameters) and absence of output schema/annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and cost implications. It does not explain the return structure or edge cases, but the schema provides enough parameter-level detail for an agent to proceed.

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 covers 75% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds valuable semantic context beyond the schema by explaining the quota relationship ('Cost = markets × regions') and clarifying the tool's scope ('upcoming and live'). This helps the agent understand the trade-offs between markets and regions.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('upcoming and live game odds for a sport'). It also distinguishes itself as 'the primary endpoint for pre-game odds analysis', which differentiates it from sibling tools like odds_get_event_odds or sm_odds_prematch.

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 clear usage context by calling itself the 'primary endpoint for pre-game odds analysis' and mentions cost implications ('Cost = markets × regions'). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to use other sibling tools.

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