Event odds

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: a key with raw-odds read permission is required, the call is metered ('spends tokens'), the price is quoted before commitment, and it self-refuses above max_tokens — this also reconciles the surprising readOnlyHint=false by implying a metered, non-inert operation. It does not describe the shape or scale of what comes back.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core read action and the id provenance immediately after it. The parenthetical breaks the sentence flow slightly, but no sentence is wasted.

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 6-parameter, no-output-schema tool whose annotations are partly misleading, the description covers auth, cost, refusal, and scoping — enough to call it correctly. It leaves the return structure unstated, which is the one gap an agent cannot recover from structured fields.

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, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the provenance of `id` (events or odds) and the pre-flight semantics of `max_tokens` as a refusal threshold. It confirms rather than merely restates the filtering role of bookmakers/markets.

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 and resource — reads one event's prices across every bookmaker and exchange carrying it, then narrows to named bookmakers/markets. It is clearly differentiated from the siblings `events` and `odds` by tying the input id to those tools as its source.

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?

Gives the prerequisite for `id` (come from `events` or `odds`), the scoping axes (bookmakers, markets), and the cost gate (priced first, refused above max_tokens). It never states when to prefer this over the sibling `odds` tool, so it stops short of explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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