fanduel_sb_live_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format and NJ constraint, but fails to mention behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the data is polled, or what happens if the event is not live. The description is too brief for safe agent invocation.

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 short and front-loaded with purpose, which is good. However, the conciseness comes at the cost of missing critical details (usage, parameter meaning, behavioral notes). It could be improved by including more context without becoming verbose.

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 simple tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It mentions return fields but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and parameter clarification. An agent would likely need to guess or fail if the eventId is not understood. The NJ constraint is unexplained.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'eventId'. The description does not explain where to obtain eventId, its format, or any constraints beyond 'for one sportsbook event'. This adds minimal value over the schema definition.

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 states 'Live score + period state for one sportsbook event (NJ)', which clearly identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving live score and period state for a single FanDuel sportsbook event, with a New Jersey constraint. The verb and resource are implied. No explicit differentiation from sibling tools like 'betfair_scores' or 'fanduel_sb_call', but the specificity to FanDuel and NJ provides some distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, whether to use for historical data versus live, or when not to use it. With many sibling tools for scores (e.g., betfair_scores, nba_scoreboard_today), the lack of usage context makes it difficult for an agent to decide.

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