Fetch the statistics section for a LiveScore match by passing its five-segment path; returns clean JSON when the source exposes it.
LiveScore match statistics. Returns the statistics section for a LiveScore match when the source exposes it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Five-segment path after /en/ from a LiveScore match URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does contribute one useful trait: results are only returned when the upstream source exposes the statistics section. However, it omits other relevant behavior such as read-only nature, error handling, or output characteristics.
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 definition is two short sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat about source availability is appropriately placed second.
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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not describe what the returned statistics section contains, leaving the agent with only a generic sense of the response.
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 the single required `path` parameter is fully documented in the schema as a five-segment path after `/en/`. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb ("Returns") and resource ("the statistics section for a LiveScore match"), making the tool's job clear. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as livescore_match or flashscore_match_stats, so an agent must infer that this is the dedicated stats-section endpoint.
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 guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like livescore_match or other livescore tools. The only conditional language, "when the source exposes it," describes result availability rather than tool-selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.