get_odds_movements

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

The description discloses that the tool returns 'opening, latest, and all intermediate price changes', which is key behavioral information. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and adequately conveys the read-only, historical nature. However, it does not mention edge cases or rate limits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is efficient and clear.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains what is returned ('opening, latest, and all intermediate price changes'), which is sufficient for a read tool. It could be more complete with details on format or pagination, but it is adequate for most use cases.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond noting that marketLine is not required for ML markets. Baseline is 3 since schema covers the parameters well.

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 'Get historical odds line movements for an event from a bookmaker', specifying the verb (get), resource (odds line movements), and scope (historical, from a bookmaker, for a specific market). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_odds (current odds) and get_historical_odds (odds at a point in time).

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 use for tracking odds changes over time via 'historical' and 'movements', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_dropping_odds or get_arbitrage_bets. No explicit when-not or alternative tool names are provided.

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