dabble_competition_fixtures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the return format but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, safe, or has any side effects. The description is adequate but lacks explicit safety or authorization context.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear purpose, followed by usage guidance, a detailed return format, and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The return format is fully detailed, compensating for the lack of output schema. However, the description omits explanations for two parameters (exclude, includeInPlay) and does not address error handling or edge cases. It is mostly complete for the competitionId parameter but not for the others.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. Only competitionId is addressed via usage instructions; exclude and includeInPlay are not mentioned. The description adds minimal value beyond the raw schema for one out of three parameters.

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 it returns all fixtures for a single competition with embedded markets, prices, selections, and teams. It distinguishes itself from sibling dabble_fixture_details, which provides full book details for one fixture.

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?

Explicitly tells how to get the competitionId from other tools (dabble_active_competitions / dabble_competitions) and directs users to dabble_fixture_details for a single fixture's full book. Provides example IDs for AFL and NRL.

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