get_value_bets

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses update frequency ('Updated every 5 seconds') and the EV formula, but omits behaviors like required permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the bookmaker is invalid.

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 concise with three sentences, each adding value. It front-loads the purpose, then provides update frequency, then the formula. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description is incomplete. It explains the EV formula but does not describe the structure of returned bets, pagination, or error states. It provides enough context for basic use but lacks detail for comprehensive understanding.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context about EV and update frequency but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline 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's function: 'Get positive expected value betting opportunities for a bookmaker.' It specifies the verb 'get', the resource 'value bets', and adds constraints like 'positive expected value' and 'for a bookmaker'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_arbitrage_bets and get_dropping_odds by focusing on EV opportunities.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or context for selection among sibling tools like get_odds or search_events.

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