poll_updates

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a periodic polling endpoint, it returns paginated events, and the caller must persist next_cursor. The idempotentHint aligns with repeated polling, and there is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by practical instructions. Every sentence adds useful information, though the phrase 'apuesta por apuesta' is slightly ambiguous and could be clearer.

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 polling tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: what events are delivered, how to paginate with the cursor, and that it must be invoked periodically. It does not describe the output shape or limit behavior, but the core usage is adequately specified.

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 description explains the `after` parameter by instructing the caller to save next_cursor as the next after value, which is valuable given 0% schema description coverage. However, the `limit` parameter is not mentioned or clarified, leaving part of the parameter semantics to inference from its name and default value.

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 synchronizes and delivers bet-by-bet events, and lists the content types: orders, fills, and results. It is specific enough about the resource and action, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like sync_orders.

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 clear usage context: the client must poll periodically and use next_cursor as the next `after` value. It does not explicitly compare against alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the polling pattern is clearly implied and actionable.

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