list_sports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the list is live, costs 0 credits, can return empty results out of season, and that a sport being listed only means the id is accepted—not that games are currently available.

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 long but every sentence adds unique value: coverage semantics, cost, use-before-get_odds guidance, bookmaker probing caveats, and seasonality. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then expands logically into usage and edge cases without repetition.

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 the tool's one optional parameter and the absence of annotations, the description covers everything: what the tool returns in both argument modes, how it interacts with sibling get_odds, cost implications, empty-result behavior, and common failure modes. An output schema is not present, but the narrative return structure is sufficiently detailed.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the only parameter 'sport': no argument returns all sports, while a sport value returns market types grouped into game/team/player_props and valid bookmaker names. It also clarifies how these returned values relate to get_odds.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the sports RapidOddsAPI covers, or one sport's market types.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by framing it as the live coverage list, explicitly separating it from memory/web lookups and get_odds.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it before get_odds whenever the sport id or the market type is not certain' and 'Call this before naming bookmakers.' It also explains when not to rely on memory/web and warns that probing unrecognized bookmaker names costs credits, making usage boundaries clear.

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