fanduel_sb_live_score

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and specifies the exact return structure (openDate, homeTeam/awayTeam objects, comp, mediaTypes). The 'NJ' restriction is also disclosed. This is useful behavioral context beyond annotations with no contradictions.

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 concise lines: purpose, return shape, and auth. Front-loaded with the most important info. No filler or repetition. Each sentence earns its place.

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 tool with strong annotations, the description provides the return shape, auth, and geographic limitation. It doesn't explain period state values or mediaTypes, but that's unnecessary for selection and invocation. The combination of schema, annotations, and description is sufficient.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for eventId, including its origin from fanduel_sb_call and URL path requirement. The description itself does not elaborate on the parameter, and the schema already carries the semantic weight. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema is sufficient and the description adds no extra parameter nuance.

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?

Description clearly states the tool provides 'Live score + period state for one sportsbook event (NJ)'. This is a specific verb+resource with a geographic scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fanduel_sb_call and other sportsbook tools. The 'one event' qualifier directly maps to the eventId parameter.

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?

Use is implied by the purpose: when you need live score for a single sportsbook event. The schema description further guides usage by stating eventId comes from 'fanduel_sb_call event_page / content_page', and the tool description references the return shape. This provides a clear workflow context, though it doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternatives.

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