pinnacle_sport_matchups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the return format but does not disclose behavioral aspects like read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or any potential side effects. A simple read operation is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 concise: one sentence, a brief return format, and an example. However, it could include parameter guidance without becoming verbose, so it is not maximally efficient.

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 input (one integer) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of the parameter, differentiation from siblings, and clarity on what 'highlighted' means. The return format example is helpful but insufficient.

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 description fails to explain the sportId parameter. It only mentions 'for one sport' but does not describe how to obtain the integer ID or map sport names to IDs. The schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, which it does not.

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 tool name and description clearly indicate it returns highlighted matchups for a sport, with specific fields listed. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like pinnacle_sport_matchups_all or pinnacle_sport_matchups_live, which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not compare with pinnacle_sport_matchups_all (all matchups) or pinnacle_sport_matchups_live, nor does it explain the context for 'highlighted' matchups.

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