pointsbet_inplay_streaming

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint true, and the description complements these by adding that no auth is needed and by detailing the exact return format. It also notes the data is grouped by sport. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not mention rate limits or other edge behaviors.

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: one purpose sentence, a return structure, and an auth note. Every element is necessary and clearly formatted. It avoids verbosity and repetition.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides enough information: the purpose and the return structure. It could have explained what 'visionData' contains (e.g., the actual stream URLs) but this is a minor gap. The description is otherwise complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the schema has full coverage (100%). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add anything else.

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 states the tool returns in-play events with live video streams, grouped by sport, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like pointsbet_sports_inplay (which likely lists all in-play events without the video requirement). The return structure is also explicitly detailed.

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 implies the use case: if you need in-play events that have live video streams, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context signals show many sibling tools, but no direct comparison is provided.

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