Bookmakers

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond the annotations, namely that the call costs no tokens, which affects an agent's willingness to call it freely.

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?

Two short sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the output, the second justifies calling it. The key information is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does name the returned content (bookmaker and exchange keys) plus the cost. It stops short of describing the response shape (e.g. how bookmakers vs exchanges are separated), a minor gap for a simple list tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No parameter meaning is missing.

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 specific verb (Lists) and resource (bookmaker and exchange keys), and goes further by naming the siblings (odds, event_odds, coverage) whose inputs these keys are, so an agent immediately understands the tool's role in the workflow.

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 makes clear this is the lookup source for the keys consumed by odds, event_odds and coverage, which gives an agent a strong cue for when to call it first. It does not state explicit exclusions or say when not to call it, so it falls short of a 5.

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