pointsbet_sports_inplay

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, establishing the safety profile. The description adds authentication requirements and the return structure, but does not disclose any potential caveats or edge cases (e.g., whether only sports with active events are included). It adds some value beyond annotations but not rich behavioral context.

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, with one sentence for the core purpose, one line for the return structure, and one for auth. No wasted words; every element adds value and is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is fully complete. It explains the return structure (which is standard practice since no output schema exists), specifies that no auth is needed, and clearly states the data scope. No further information is necessary for the agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema coverage is 100% vacuously, and the baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 (sports currently in-play) and the key output (live event count per sport). It distinguishes from siblings like pointsbet_sports_list and pointsbet_inplay_streaming through its focus on in-play status and event counts, though the verb is implicit rather than explicit.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention alternative tools, exclusions, or situational context beyond the core purpose, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name and output.

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