SXS (Sports x Science) read-only match data and reviews. Free: previous match day. Data only.
Scored across 2 tools
get_match_data returns pre-match recommendations and odds, while get_match_review returns published post-match reviews; the resource and time orientation (before vs after the match) are clearly distinct, so an agent can pick confidently.
Both tools use a consistent get_<noun> snake_case pattern (get_match_data, get_match_review), with no mixed conventions or vague verbs.
Two tools is borderline thin for a match-data service; there is no tool for discovering available match dates or listing covered fixtures, so the surface feels under-scoped even if the two operations themselves are reasonable.
A read-only data service doesn't need update/delete, but there is a notable gap around discovery: no way to enumerate available matches or dates, and both tools depend on exact/fuzzy team names the agent must already know. This forces trial-and-error rather than a clean lookup flow.
查第一层赛事数据（全场/半场/让球三套推荐、圆整自算概率、竞彩赔率）。
Args:
match_date: 竞彩日（YYYY-MM-DD）。免费层只提供**昨日**竞彩日。
team: 球队名（模糊匹配）。与 match_date 二选一；同时传以 match_date 优先。
Returns:
status: ok / no_coverage / not_published / silent / unauthorized / rate_limited
（今日数据需授权；未授权一律默认拒绝，不返回任何今日场次）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team | No | ||
| match_date | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses authorization requirements (今日数据需授权), the default-deny posture for unauthorized callers, and the free-tier data window, plus the full status enum including rate_limited, silent, and no_coverage. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.
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?
Uses an Args/Returns structure with the core purpose front-loaded in one sentence. The Returns list is slightly padded but every item (auth, silence, rate limit) is load-bearing for correct invocation.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description covers that gap by enumerating the possible status values and the authorization behavior behind them. Combined with the param documentation, an agent has enough to select and call the tool correctly; only sibling differentiation and result shape details are thin.
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%, so the description must compensate and it fully does: it documents both params, gives the date format (YYYY-MM-DD), states team is fuzzy-matched, and resolves the interaction (二选一; match_date 优先). Nothing about the params is left to the 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?
States a specific verb+resource (查第一层赛事数据) and enumerates what is returned (全场/半场/让球三套推荐、圆整自算概率、竞彩赔率), so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces. However it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_match_review, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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?
Conveys real usage context via the tier constraint (免费层只提供昨日竞彩日) and the mutual-exclusivity rule for the two args. But it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus the alternative get_match_review, so routing remains implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
检索官网已公开的赛后复盘（只返已公开内容与链接）。
Args:
match_date: 比赛日期（YYYY-MM-DD）。
home: 主队名。away: 客队名。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| away | No | ||
| home | No | ||
| match_date | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that only publicly released reviews and links are returned — but says nothing about permission needs, behavior when no review exists, or result size/limits.
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 front-loaded sentence states the purpose and scope, followed by a compact args list. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical could be folded in more cleanly.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover more ground. It hints at the return shape ('content and links') but omits the empty/default behavior of all three optional params and the no-result case, leaving gaps for a lookup tool.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it gives the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and identifies home/away as team names. However, it does not explain that all three parameters are optional with empty-string defaults, nor what happens when home/away are omitted.
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?
States a specific verb (检索/retrieve) and resource (官网已公开的赛后复盘, official-site post-match reviews), and scopes it to already-published content and links. It is distinguishable in spirit from get_match_data (reviews vs. data), but the description never names the sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling get_match_data as an alternative. The only guidance is an implicit scoping caveat ('only returns already-public content'), which tells the agent what comes back but not when to prefer this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_match_dataget_match_reviewPremier League, MLS and European football: lineups, shot maps, xG, tables and odds. REST and MCP.
Sports data across 8 sports under one canonical schema — scores, stats, standings, Elo, odds
Round-robin fixtures, standings and match-day plans for league organizers. Free.
Historical football results, draws and no-draw streaks. 11 read-only tools, 6 need no API key.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.