SharpEdge MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: returns '2-3 sample' items, includes specific data fields (sport, matchup, etc.), and clarifies these are 'representative samples, not live odds.' However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no edges are available for a sport.

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 perfectly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence establishes the core purpose, and the second sentence adds crucial clarification about sample nature. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving sample data with one optional parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what data fields are included and the sample nature, though it could benefit from mentioning return format or error conditions for a perfect score.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (which fully documents the optional 'sport' filter with enum values and behavior when omitted). No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get sample +EV betting opportunities') and resource ('SharpEdge AI finds'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying these are 'representative samples, not live odds' (unlike get_live_stats) and focuses on edge quality demonstration (unlike explain_ev_betting which explains concepts).

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool: to get 'representative samples' of betting edges for quality demonstration. It implicitly distinguishes from get_live_stats by noting 'not live odds,' but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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