get_bet

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'One paper bet by id,' offering no information about side effects, read-only nature, error conditions, or rate limits. For a get operation this is a minimal gap, but the description adds no meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose. While it is very brief, it is not overly verbose; the structure is clean and easily parseable by an agent.

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 low complexity (one simple parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the core purpose but omits usage context and behavioral details. The agent lacks information about when to choose this over get_my_bets, what a 'paper bet' implies, or any response expectations. It is barely adequate for a trivial get operation but falls short for robust agent decision-making.

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 schema documents one parameter, bet_id (integer), with 0% description coverage. The description's phrase 'by id' explicitly maps bet_id to the bet identifier, which adds modest semantic value. However, it does not elaborate on required formats, constraints, or relationships, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 states a clear verb (get) and resource (paper bet) with an identifier ('by id'), making it obvious that this tool retrieves a single bet. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, the 'by id' phrasing distinguishes it from list operations like get_my_bets or get_arbs.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer from the name and description that it is appropriate when a specific bet_id is available.

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