pinnacle_league_matchups_live

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description additionally discloses the exact return shape, top-level array behavior, empty response behavior, and that no auth is needed, adding value beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-line purpose statement, a concise return signature with empty semantics, and an auth note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description provides all essential operational context: input provenance, output shape, empty behavior, and authentication status. There are no significant gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 only parameter, leagueId, is fully described in the input schema with provenance and URL-path context, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds only the 'one league' scope, so the schema carries the parameter-semantics burden and the description need not compensate further.

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 opens with 'Live (in-play) matchups for one league (competition)', which clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like pinnacle_league_matchups (non-live) and pinnacle_sport_matchups_live (sport-wide rather than league-scoped).

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 clearly signals when to use this tool: when you need live/in-play matchups for a single league. It also explains the empty-array case ('empty when nothing live'), which gives practical context, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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