get_sportsbook_status

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it declares the tool is free, that pools are real-USDC parimutuel, that winners share 98% of stakes pro-rata, that one-sided and cancelled games refund in full, and that settlement follows official ESPN results with on-chain tx hashes. It omits pagination, rate limits, and how much settled history is returned, and the final sentence is truncated.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the [FREE] marker is useful, but a large share of the text describes the betting endpoint, payout split, and refund policy rather than this read tool's own behavior. The description also ends mid-sentence ("filters open pools to"), which is a structural defect rather than mere brevity.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should convey the shape of the response; it does so at a high level (open pools, settled pools, tx hashes) but not the fields, ordering, or how many settled pools come back. Combined with the truncation and the undocumented league values, an agent can call it but cannot predict the payload.

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 0% and the single `league` parameter has only a default of empty string, so the description must compensate. It does partially by explaining that league optionally filters open pools, but the sentence is cut off mid-thought, so the accepted values and whether settled pools are also filtered are left unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ("Read") with a named resource ("AgentPayStore Sportsbook") and enumerates exactly what is returned: open parimutuel pools on four leagues plus recently settled pools with payout transactions. It is clearly distinguishable from adjacent tools like get_sports_payment_proof or get_recent_settlements, though it never names a sibling directly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent infers this is the discovery/listing step before betting, and the description explains the separate POST endpoint used to actually place a bet. There is no explicit "use this instead of X" routing, and the sentence about the league filter cuts off before completing the guidance.

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