Fetch a SofaScore match's betting markets and choices by event ID from public JSON; returns 404 when no odds exist for that match.
SofaScore event odds. Returns one match's betting markets and choices from SofaScore's credential-free public JSON. Returns 404 when SofaScore has no odds for the match.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric SofaScore event (match) id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions that a 404 is returned when odds are not available, which is a useful behavioral note. However, with no annotations provided, the description should also disclose rate limits, data freshness, or whether the response format is documented. The 'credential-free' mention helps but is limited.
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 very concise: three sentences with no waste. It front-loads the purpose and includes key details (data source, error behavior) efficiently.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it returns (markets and choices), the source, and a common error. It lacks detail on the structure of the returned data, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.
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 covers 100% of the single parameter id, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond 'Numeric SofaScore event (match) id'. The schema already describes it adequately, so the description does not add value here.
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 'one match's betting markets and choices' from SofaScore. It specifies the data source ('credential-free public JSON') and an important behavior (404 when no odds). This distinguishes it from siblings like sofascore_event, which likely returns general match info.
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 for retrieving odds for a specific match, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other SofaScore tools (e.g., sofascore_event, sofascore_event_h2h). No guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where alternatives are better.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.