get_splits

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the valuable context that the tool returns available:false with no charge if splits are not yet captured, which is beyond the annotation information. It also mentions the captured_at timestamp, though does not detail all edge cases.

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, consisting of two sentences that effectively front-load the main purpose and then provide a specific behavioral detail. Every sentence adds value without 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 low complexity (single parameter with full schema coverage), the presence of an output schema, and the description summarizing key output components, the description is complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage. No additional context is needed.

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 100%, with the sole parameter event_id already described clearly in the schema as coming from list_events, query_events, or search results. The description does not add further semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score 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 tool retrieves public betting splits (bets% and handle%) for an event, including a consensus split and per-book breakdown with a timestamp. It also specifies the behavior when splits are unavailable. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_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 implies usage by stating what the tool retrieves, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_odds or get_odds_history. It does mention the case when splits are not captured (available:false), which provides some context but no direct comparison to siblings.

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