propline_get_odds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes a bookmakers[] array with up to 13 books, that coverage varies by sport, and how parameters affect behavior. It lacks details on authentication or rate limits, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 (5 sentences), front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main behaviors and response structure. It could mention error handling or supported sports, but the essentials are present.

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 75%, and the description adds value beyond schema descriptions by providing examples (e.g., 'h2h,spreads,totals' for markets) and explaining default behaviors for event_id and markets. The parameters are well explained in combination.

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 live odds' and distinguishes two modes based on event_id: full per-event props when event_id supplied, bulk game-line odds otherwise. It is specific and actionable, differentiating from siblings by naming the resource (odds) and behavior.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool with or without event_id, and how to specify markets and bookmakers. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the context is sufficient for common use cases.

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