get_odds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation, but says nothing about rate limits, data freshness, auth requirements, or return format—gaps that matter for an odds feed that presumably updates frequently.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded. It is not padded, though its brevity borders on under-specification given the number of competing odds tools.

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 read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the core is technically covered, but the description fails to position itself among many odds-related siblings or explain the relationship to the bookmaker-selection tools. An agent cannot confidently route to this tool over get_updated_odds or get_multi_odds.

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 100%, so both eventId and bookmakers are already documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'selected bookmakers' adds a small hint linking bookmakers to the selection workflow, but no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a clear verb and resource ('Get betting odds'), scoped to 'a specific event from selected bookmakers.' However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like get_updated_odds, get_historical_odds, get_multi_odds, or get_dropping_odds, leaving the agent to infer which 'get odds' variant applies.

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 gives no when-to-use context and names no alternatives, despite a crowded field of odds siblings (get_historical_odds, get_updated_odds, get_multi_odds). It also does not state whether calling select_bookmakers first is a prerequisite for the 'selected bookmakers' argument.

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