sofascore_event

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

The description mentions it returns data from a 'credential-free public JSON' API, which is helpful. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose potential behavioral traits like rate limits, caching, or data freshness. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise: two sentences packing the source, return fields, and credential-free nature. Every word is useful, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basics: match detail fields and data source. However, it omits potential error states, response structure, or any limitations, which a complete description should include.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of the single parameter 'id' with a clear description. The tool's description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so the value added is minimal.

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 specifies the tool returns a single match's detail (teams, score, status, venue, referee). The purpose is unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like sofascore_event_lineups or sofascore_event_statistics.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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