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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: it is a paid x402 call costing $0.002 USDC per successful call, failed calls are not charged, and payment can be made on Base, Solana, or Arc. It also outlines what data is returned in each mode.

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 dense sentences with no wasted text. The core resource is front-loaded, mode behavior follows immediately, and the pricing caveat is clearly separated at the end.

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 need not be exhaustively described. The description covers both usage modes, supported sports, payment behavior, and failure charging, which is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the event ID switch between live-list mode and detailed-match mode, and by listing supported sports; limit and competition are 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?

The description clearly states the resource (live SofaScore sports data) and distinguishes its two operating modes: live match listing without an event ID, and detailed match data with an event ID. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling sports tools, so it is clear but not fully sibling-aware.

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 gives explicit conditional usage: omit event ID for a live match list, include an event ID for period scores, incidents, odds, and statistics. It does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, but the mode selection guidance is strong.

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