odds_get_participants

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral info ('whitelist of known participants' and 'Cost: 1 quota'), which goes beyond a trivial restatement. However, it omits details such as authentication requirements, error behavior, or return format, so it only partially discloses the tool's behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence plus a cost note. Every word earns its place, with no padding 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 simple one-parameter list tool, the description is quite complete: it states the purpose, the input scope, a qualification ('whitelist'), and a cost. It lacks an explicit output shape, but the verb 'List' implies an array, and there is no output schema to obligate further detail. It covers the essential context for a basic tool.

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 fully describes the single 'sport' parameter as 'Sport key', and the description merely says 'for a sport', adding no new semantic information. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List teams/players') and the resource ('for a sport'), with the clarifying phrase 'whitelist of known participants' that distinguishes it from other list tools like odds_get_sports. It is concise and 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 when to use the tool (to get participants for a sport) but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like sm_teams or sm_players, nor provide any exclusions or alternative-use guidance. It's a clear but not fully elaborated usage context.

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