Retrieve a single match's SofaScore statistics, including possession, shots, and passes split by period; returns 404 if no statistics are tracked.
SofaScore event statistics. Returns one match's statistics (possession, shots, passes, and more, grouped and split by period). Returns 404 when SofaScore has no tracked statistics 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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the 404 edge case when no statistics are tracked, which is genuine behavioral context beyond the schema, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or response shape for a read endpoint.
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?
Two tight sentences, with the core return description front-loaded and the 404 caveat trailing. No wasted phrasing, though the lead 'SofaScore event statistics.' is slightly redundant with the title/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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the returned content (stat categories, period splitting) and the failure mode. Only sibling differentiation and richer behavioral detail are missing.
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 'id' parameter is documented as a numeric SofaScore event id, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, matching the baseline for a fully-covered schema.
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 action (returns) and resource (one match's statistics), and enumerates the content (possession, shots, passes) and grouping (split by period). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sofascore_event_player_statistics by being match-level, but never names the alternative explicitly.
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 only says what the tool returns; it gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no comparison against the many sibling sofascore_event_* tools (lineups, incidents, player statistics). Usage is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.