get_today_races

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: advised prices are database-frozen at publication, and it also states the return type (race ids). This is adequate context for a read-only getter, though it could mention timezone or what other fields are included.

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 the first sentence front-loading the core purpose. The parenthetical adds critical pricing nuance without bloat, and the second sentence provides a useful workflow pointer. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless getter with no output schema, the description specifies the scope (today, GB & IRE), the special pricing behavior, and the downstream use of race ids. It could mention what other race data is returned, but this is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter meaning, but none is needed; the baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on output semantics instead.

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 a specific verb+resource: it retrieves today's GB & IRE horse races with Racing Alpha's model picks. It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying the output is race ids usable with get_race_signals, making its role unambiguous.

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 implies use for obtaining today's race list and provides a clear follow-up action ('usable with get_race_signals'), establishing context. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_tips_ledger or get_draw_bias, so it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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