Retrieve betting markets and choices for a specific SofaScore match by its numeric event ID. Returns 404 if no odds exist.
SofaScore event odds. Returns one match's betting markets and choices. 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 404 condition when SofaScore has no odds for the match, which is real behavioral value, but it says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or response shape.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the return contents and the error case. Nothing is padded, though the opening phrase slightly restates the tool name.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the no-odds failure mode. The main remaining gap is not positioning it against the neighboring odds tools.
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%, so the schema already defines the single id parameter as a numeric SofaScore event id. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Returns one match's betting markets and choices") and scopes it to a single event, which tells an agent what it gets back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling odds tools like sofascore_odds_dropping or sofascore_odds_winning, so differentiation is left to the agent.
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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only implicit guidance is that you need an event id, which the schema already requires. An agent cannot tell from the description when this odds endpoint should be preferred over the other sofascore odds endpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.