get_live_odds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions 'real-time' and 'line movement history' but doesn't specify update frequency, rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness guarantees. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding operational behavior.

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 efficient sentences with zero waste. The first sentence clearly states purpose and output, while the second adds valuable context about odds comparison. Every element serves a purpose, and the description is appropriately front-loaded with core functionality.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose clarity but insufficient behavioral context. It covers what the tool does but lacks details on how it behaves operationally, what the return format looks like, or any limitations. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description should do more to compensate for missing annotations and output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing good parameter documentation. The description adds marginal value by implying 'multiple sportsbooks' relates to the bookmakers parameter and 'current spreads, totals, moneylines, and player props' relates to markets. However, it doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 the specific action ('Get real-time betting odds') and resource ('from multiple sportsbooks'), with detailed output specification ('spreads, totals, moneylines, and player props with line movement history'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on odds retrieval rather than projections, recommendations, or lineup optimization.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions 'Identifies best available odds across bookmakers,' which implies a comparison function, but doesn't specify when to choose this over other tools like get_player_projections or explain_recommendation. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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