team_events_lastRecent results for a team: the 5 most recently completed games/matches/fixtures by team_id (from search_teams); returns event name, date, home/away teams, and final score. Works for any league worldwide including lower divisions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds specific behavioral information: '5 most recently completed games', 'returns event name, date, home/away teams, and final score', and 'works for any league worldwide including lower divisions'. No contradictions with annotations.
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 sentence followed by a clause, no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose: 'Recent results for a team: the 5 most recently completed games/matches/fixtures'. Each part adds value, and the structure is 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?
The tool has one parameter, an output schema exists (not shown but present), rich annotations, and a clear description that explains purpose, output, and parameter source. Sibling tools (team_events_next, search_teams) provide further context. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.
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 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'team_id'. The description provides context by stating it comes from search_teams and is used to identify the team. While it does not specify format constraints, the added context compensates for the bare schema, making it moderately helpful.
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 tool returns the 5 most recently completed games for a team, specifying the input (team_id from search_teams) and output fields (event name, date, home/away teams, final score). The title 'Team Events Last' contrasts with the sibling 'team_events_next', though not explicitly 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?
The description mentions that team_id comes from 'search_teams', implying a prerequisite. It also states the tool works for any league worldwide. However, it does not explicitly compare with the sibling 'team_events_next' or provide guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives for more than 5 results or different timeframes.
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.
The sports tools are distinct, but the majority of the set has heavy overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve as query/entry-point tools, with ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly identical. The Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also blurs together.
The sports subset follows a clean verb_noun pattern (get_player, list_leagues, search_teams), but the rest mixes several naming schemes: ask_pipeworx*, pipeworx_* prefixed tools, polymarket_* tools, one-word verbs (remember, recall, forget), and compound names like scan_competitor_ai_presence. No single consistent convention governs the set.
42 tools is far too many for a server named Thesportsdb; only 10 tools relate to sports data, while 32 belong to an unrelated Pipeworx data/betting/memory platform. The set feels like two or three servers merged into one, making it heavy and unfocused for any single purpose.
For the stated sports domain, the surface is partial: you can get teams, players, league tables, and recent/next fixtures, but there are no player statistics, head-to-head records, venue details, or season history — leaving notable gaps. The Pipeworx half is broad but doesn't belong in a server with this name, so the set as a whole is incomplete for its apparent purpose.