pinnacle_sport_matchups_live

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context beyond this: 'Auth: none needed' and the exact return shape. It clarifies that only live/in-play events are returned, which is a behavioral trait not fully captured by 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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses minimal lines to convey the return structure and auth requirement. Every sentence provides relevant information without repetition or padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately documents the return fields explicitly (id, league.name, participants, startTime, isLive, liveMode). Combined with the auth note and simple single-parameter schema, the description gives a sufficiently complete picture for a live-list read tool, though pagination and error behavior are not mentioned.

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 100%, and the schema already explains sportId is from pinnacle_sports_live and required. The tool description adds no extra parameter detail beyond the phrase 'for one sport', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource as live (in-play) matchups for a single sport, which distinguishes it from siblings like pinnacle_sport_matchups (likely scheduled) and pinnacle_sport_matchups_all (all sports). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 phrase 'for one sport' gives a hint that this tool is for live matchups filtered by a single sportId, contrasting with broader tools like pinnacle_sport_matchups_all. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the sportId.

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