get_updated_odds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the time constraint and update scope, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not describe return format, error handling, or potential pagination, leaving gaps for an agent to infer 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 two sentences long, with no extraneous words. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides a usage hint. Every sentence is purposeful and front-loaded.

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 that there is no output schema and the tool is relatively straightforward (3 required parameters), the description covers the essential purpose and constraint. However, it lacks details on return value structure, error conditions, or rate limits, making it minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the time constraint already present in the schema, adding minimal new meaning. It reinforces the polling context but does not explain parameter formats or relationships beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Get odds') and the specific resource ('updated odds since a Unix timestamp for a bookmaker and sport'). It distinguishes from related tools like 'get_odds' or 'get_odds_movements' by emphasizing the polling use case and the required time window.

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 explicitly recommends usage for 'efficient polling' and notes the critical constraint that the timestamp must be at most 1 minute old. This provides clear context for when to use this tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives.

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