get_live_odds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool retrieves 'live odds' and returns specific odds types (moneyline, spread, total), but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authorization requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. The description implies a read operation but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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 a clear front-loaded purpose sentence and an optional Args section. However, the Args format could be integrated into the main text for brevity; the current structure is still efficient.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values, but it usefully summarizes what the odds include. For a simple tool with one parameter, the description covers essential aspects (sources, sport list, return type), though it omits edge-case behavior like handling invalid sports or empty games.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving the parameter 'sport' underspecified. The description compensates by listing valid sport values ('nba', 'nhl', 'ncaab', 'mlb'), which adds essential meaning beyond the schema's type constraint.

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('live odds'), and data sources ('FanDuel and BetMGM'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_todays_picks or get_pending_picks which deal with picks rather than 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to use get_live_odds vs get_todays_picks). No explicit conditions or exclusions provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and description.

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