get_resultGet the cached final result for ONE finished match by event id.
Returns the final score, red cards and finished time. ``status`` is "found" or "not_found" (the
match isn't in the 30-day cache). Results-only — no odds.
Args:
event_id: event id (e.g. "evt_…") from find_match / list_results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations show readOnlyHint=true, and description reinforces read-only behavior. Adds important constraints: only finished matches, 30-day cache, status field for not_found. Provides details beyond annotations without contradiction.
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?
Description is brief and well-structured, with a clear purpose sentence, return details, and an args section. No redundant information. Could integrate args into prose, but current format is acceptable.
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 single-param tool with no output schema and readOnly annotations, description covers functionality, return fields, constraints, and parameter source. Lacks explicit return structure, but is sufficient for agent decision-making given sibling context.
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 has 0% description coverage for event_id, but description compensates with format example (evt_…) and source (find_match/list_results). Adds meaningful context the schema lacks.
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?
Description clearly states it gets the cached final result for one finished match by event ID, specifying return fields (score, red cards, time, status). Distinguishes from odds tools via 'Results-only — no odds.' Verb+resource is specific and 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?
Explicitly states tool is for finished matches, cached for 30 days, and results-only. Provides source for event_id from find_match/list_results. Could improve by explicitly contrasting with live or odds tools, but given sibling names, context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: compare_lines contrasts bookmakers, compare_prob evaluates external probabilities, find_arbitrage detects arbitrage opportunities, find_match resolves fixtures, etc. Even related tools like get_sharp_line (one-call line) and compare_lines (event_id-based comparison) are complementary rather than overlapping. No ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., compare_lines, find_match, list_bookmakers). Verbs like compare, find, get, list, scan, score are uniform. No mixing of conventions or vague names.
With 17 tools covering fixture discovery, odds retrieval, comparisons, value/arb detection, line movement, results, and slate scanning, the count is well-scoped for a sports betting odds API. No unnecessary tools, and the set feels complete without being bloated.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: find matches (find_match, list_events, list_today_matches), get odds (get_match_odds, get_sharp_line, compare_lines), detect value/arb (find_value, find_arbitrage, scan_slate), analyze lines (get_opening_line, explain_handicap, score_prob), and retrieve results (get_result, list_results). No obvious gaps for the stated read-only odds analysis domain.