get_my_bets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'newest first' as a sorting behavior, but it does not indicate that this is a read-only operation, whether there are side effects, rate limits, or any other behavioral constraints. For a getter with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 short, front-loaded phrase that directly states the resource and ordering without any fluff. It is efficient and to the point, which is good for conciseness, though it comes at the cost of missing critical context. For what it says, it is well-structured and appropriately brief.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the agent_id parameter, does not differentiate from siblings like get_bet or get_predictions, and does not mention potential pagination, filtering, or limits. An agent cannot confidently determine when to use this tool or how to fill the parameter correctly.

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 has one parameter 'agent_id' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description says 'Your' which hints that agent_id identifies whose bets, but it does not explicitly state that agent_id is the required identifier or how it is used. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 'Your paper bets, newest first' clearly specifies the resource (paper bets) and the owner (your), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_arbs or get_value_bets. It also states the ordering. However, it does not name a specific verb, though 'get' is implied by the tool name. It is specific enough to differentiate from most siblings but lacks explicit reference to alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_bet (single bet) or get_track_record. The description implies it is for retrieving the user's own bets, but it does not state conditions, exclusions, or when another tool would be more appropriate. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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