parlayapi_get_props

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The wording Get player prop odds strongly implies a read-only operation, and the description discloses the filtering behavior for player and futures inclusion. It does not mention pagination, response properties, or whether returned odds are live or cached, but these are partially covered by the output schema being available.

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 compact, front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, and uses a clear Args block. The example lists are useful and not padded with filler, so the overall structure is easy for an agent to parse.

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 five-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, this description covers all inputs and gives useful examples. It does not describe sibling differentiation or note that some prop markets may only be relevant for certain sports, but the output schema plus the parameter coverage make the tool generally callable.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter. It gives concrete sport_key examples, market names like player_points and player_strikeouts, bookmakers like prizepicks and draftkings, the player filter behavior, and the include_futures default.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: Get player prop odds for a sport. The resource is clearly distinct from more general tool names like get_odds, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling tool.

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 implies usage through its parameter guidance, showing how to provide sport_key, markets, bookmakers, player, and include_futures. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over get_odds, get_pricing, live_odds, or or any other sibling, nor does it give exclusions for when not to use it.

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