SkorMerkez

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the default behavior, output content (matches, times, live/finished scores), and sorting behavior (major leagues first). It does not mention limits, freshness, or empty-result behavior, but these are minor for a simple read-only list tool.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main function and default behavior are front-loaded, and the ordering note is concise and useful.

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 low-complexity tool with two optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values and key behaviors. An agent can invoke it correctly with just this information.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with formats and examples. The description adds value by clarifying the default date behavior (today, Turkey time) and implying the scope of the lig filter, which goes beyond the raw schema.

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, specific action: it returns football matches, times, and live/finished scores for a given day, defaulting to today in Turkey time. This clearly differentiates it from siblings such as mac_detay, puan_durumu, and takim_son_maclar, which serve different match/standings/team-history purposes.

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 its use for daily fixture and score queries and provides useful context such as default date and Turkey timezone, but it never explicitly tells an agent when to use this tool versus siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are named.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (score, goals, cards, stats, optional report) and notes the report is conditional ('varsa'), but it does not mention error behavior, data availability for missing matches, or any side effects. It's clear it's a read operation, but lacks depth.

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?

A single, dense sentence that lists the exact outputs and notes the conditional report. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler. Highly efficient.

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 simple detail-fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the main returned data and the optional report. It does not explain how to specify the match (fixture_id) or language, but those are in the schema. Error handling is not addressed, but for a read tool this is a minor gap. Overall, it's adequately complete.

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 coverage is 50%: only 'dil' has a description. The tool description does not mention either parameter. While 'fixture_id' is self-explanatory, the description adds no context about what it identifies or how to obtain it. With only half the parameters described in the schema and none in the description, it fails to compensate for the gap.

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 verb 'verir' (gives) and the specific resource: a match's score, goals, cards, statistics, and optionally a verified report. It explicitly lists the content, distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with lists or standings.

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 for retrieving details of a single match, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it. The name 'mac_detay' and content make it obvious, but there's no explicit routing guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds the qualifier 'güncel' (current) and indicates the output is a table, but it does not disclose output columns, freshness guarantees, or limitations. For a simple read-only standings lookup, this is acceptable, though not detailed.

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 short sentence with no filler words, and the key qualifier 'güncel' (current) is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a tool with only one parameter.

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 low-complexity tool with one fully documented required parameter and no output schema, the description states the core return value: a league standings table. An agent can select and invoke the tool correctly; additional detail about table columns would be nice but is not essential.

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 input schema fully documents the single 'lig' parameter, listing the exact allowed league values, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the resource clearly: 'Bir ligin güncel puan tablosu' (a league's current standings table). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools about matches, match details, radar reports, and recent team matches. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'returns', so it falls short of the strongest phrasing.

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 explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no alternative tool is named. The description implies usage when a current league standings table is needed, and the sibling names make the contrast fairly obvious, but the guidance is only implied.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the behavior-disclosure burden. It does convey that this is a transparency/metrics report and explicitly warns it is not a betting tool, but it never explicitly says the operation is read-only or describes what response or data access the call entails.

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 compact sentence plus a purposeful disclaimer. The metric names are front-loaded immediately after the resource name, and the 'not a betting tool' warning earns its place as a safety/expectation-setting note. No filler exists.

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 parameterless report-card tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it names the resource and the key metrics an agent can expect. It does not explain how to interpret Brier score or calibration, but the low complexity and zero-parameter surface make that a minor gap.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; per the rubric this is a baseline 4. The description adds useful context by naming the exact metrics the report exposes, which is more than the empty schema provides.

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 identifies the exact resource ('SkorMerkez Maç Radarı') and the contents of the report (isabet oranı, Brier skoru, kalibrasyon), which clearly distinguishes it from match-listing and standings siblings. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives. 'Bahis aracı değildir' is a disclaimer, not a usage guideline, and no sibling tool is mentioned. An agent must infer the use case from the report-card framing alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it does state meaningful traits: the 'official matches only' constraint, the 5-match limit, and the inclusion of the next match. No destructive behavior is implied, and for a simple read query this is sufficient; only edge-case behavior (e.g., fewer than 5 matches, no next fixture) is left unspecified.

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?

One short Turkish sentence conveys the core behavior with no filler. It is front-loaded with the main resource (team's last 5 official matches) and the additional result (next match).

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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers the high-level behavior, but it is thin: no param guidance, no sibling routing, and no output-shape hints in the absence of an output schema. An agent could select the tool correctly, but would be guessing about input normalization and return structure.

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 coverage is 0% and the only parameter, takim_adi, has no description. The text refers to 'a team' but does not specify expected name format, language, normalization, or examples, so the description adds almost no guidance beyond the parameter name itself.

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 exactly what the tool returns – a team's last 5 official match results and its next match – which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like bugunun_maclari (today's matches) and puan_durumu (standings). It lacks an explicit verb like 'gets' or 'returns', which prevents a 5, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 intended use is implied: use when you need a specific team's recent official results or upcoming fixture. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention sibling tools or alternatives, so an agent must infer the decision.

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