betrend sports data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by detailing what the result contains and clarifying the win/draw counts are by team not venue, which is genuine behavioral context.

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 front-loads the core resource and then the returned fields. It is somewhat long but every clause describes a distinct output element, so it largely earns its length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be fully explained, and the description plus schema cover the call adequately for a read-only lookup. The main gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other match tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents team_a, team_b, and the conditional sport parameter. The description adds no formatting, syntax, or edge-case guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific resource (past meetings of two teams in the same sport) and enumerates exactly what it returns: meeting counts, per-team wins and draws, total goals, last 10 results, next meeting. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like match_details 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?

Usage is implied by the described output (comparing two teams requires two team identifiers), but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative to siblings such as match_details. The agent must infer the routing.

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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: results are ordered with major competitions first and each match carries its betrend.im page URL — ordering is not something the annotations or typical schema express.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, filters second, ordering/detail third. No filler, though the closing sentence about page URLs is mild overlap with the output schema.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter listing tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description covers scope, filters, ordering, and result contents. The only gap worth noting is no mention of default/paging behavior, which the schema handles via the limit default.

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 100%, so the schema already documents limit, sport, and competition, and the description's sport list and 'competition URL from search' phrasing largely restate it. The only marginal value is reinforcing that competition may be a URL obtained from the search tool, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource with scope: 'matches being played right now', plus what each result carries (score, minute/period, page URL). The 'right now' framing implicitly separates it from matches_by_date and match_details, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

It labels sport and competition as 'optional filters' and points to search as the source of a competition URL, which gives an implied retrieval flow. There is no explicit when-to-use-this vs. matches_by_date/match_details guidance or statement of exclusions.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the scope of returned data (period breakdowns, events, venue, competition) and that the betrend.im match page URL is included, but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 sentence with zero filler; the retrieval key is stated first and the payload inventory follows. Every clause carries information.

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 with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the resource and its scope adequately. The one real gap is routing guidance relative to sibling lookup tools, which is minor for a definition this simple.

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 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents the accepted URL form and slug alternative. The description restates 'by its URL or slug' without adding format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters.

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 names the specific resource (one match) and the retrieval key (URL or slug), and enumerates the payload contents, so an agent can tell it apart from list-style siblings like matches_by_date. However, it reads as a fragment with the verb elided ('One match on betrend by its URL or slug: ...') and never names an alternative tool to differentiate against.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when this is preferable to search, matches_by_date, or live_scores, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context. It does: the queryable date range, the ordering rule (major competitions first), and the per-match URL give behavior the annotations cannot express.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core resource and time scope, then filters, then ordering and output detail. No filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not needed; the description still notes the per-match URL and ordering, which is a bonus. The only gap is routing guidance against siblings, which is absent.

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 100%, so all five parameters including date format, limit bounds, and filter inputs are already documented. The description largely restates sport/competition/team without adding syntax or selection nuance beyond what the 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?

States a specific verb+resource with explicit scope: fixtures and results for one UTC calendar day on betrend. The date-bounded listing is clearly distinct in spirit from live_scores and match_details, but no sibling is named to make the distinction 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 description implies usage by stating the date window (3 years back to 14 days ahead) and listing optional filters, but never says when to prefer this over live_scores or team/competition-scoped siblings. Usage is inferable, not prescribed.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the query matches names in any language, requires at least 2 characters, and each result returns a URL usable by other tools.

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?

Three short sentences and every one earns its place: what it finds, what it returns and how to chain it, and the sports-only bound. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers input constraints, result shape (URL per match) and scope. Only gap is no explicit guidance on sibling selection among the six related tools.

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 100%, so the schema documents query, limit and types with examples and enum values. The description's 'at least 2 characters' and 'by name' largely restate the schema's minLength and query description, adding little beyond it.

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 (Find) and the three resource kinds (competitions, teams, players) plus scope (by name). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like team, match_details, or standings, which operate on IDs/URLs already resolved rather than on free-text names.

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?

Tells the agent how this fits the workflow: results carry betrend.im URLs that feed 'the other tools', and it is scoped to sports only. That is clear routing context, though it stops short of naming which sibling to call for non-name lookups or when to skip search entirely.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior outside the annotations: results are split into groups where the competition has them, and the payload includes the standings page URL plus the list of available seasons.

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?

Information is front-loaded with the resource before the field list, and there is no filler. It is a single dense, somewhat run-on sentence, which slightly hurts scannability.

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 read-only, single-required-parameter tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly; the remaining description of return fields is largely redundant with the output schema.

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 100%, so sport, season and competition are all documented in the schema itself; the description only repeats the season default and the example season format, adding no new syntax or constraint information.

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 names the exact resource (league table of a competition) and enumerates the columns returned (position, played, won, drawn, lost, for/against, points, form), which unambiguously separates it from siblings like match_details, head_to_head, live_scores and team.

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?

It states the default season behavior ('current season by default, or a season such as "2025/26"'), which is implied usage context, but gives no explicit when-to-use-this vs an alternative, nor any prerequisites beyond the schema's note about a slug requiring sport.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real content: what the response contains (recent results, upcoming fixtures, live matches included, page URL), which is more than the annotations provide. It does not mention rate limits, auth, or freshness/staleness of the data.

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 that leads with what the tool is and then lists the returned content; no filler. It is dense but every clause maps to a distinct part of the payload, so nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it previews them usefully, and annotations carry the safety profile. Parameters are fully documented in the schema. The only missing piece is guidance on choosing this tool over the sibling overview/standings tools.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates the schema's 'URL from search or slug + sport' guidance. It adds no syntax examples, slug format, or validation details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (a team or player-participant) and enumerates the payload: country, competition positions, last 5 results, next 5 fixtures, team page URL. An agent can tell it is a single-entity aggregate view rather than a list tool. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like standings or head_to_head, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is described as a one-stop overview, and the parameter note ('Team URL from search, or its slug together with sport') hints at a search-then-fetch workflow. There is no statement of when to prefer this over standings, head_to_head, or match_details, and no exclusions.

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