sportmonks_fixture

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent/open-world annotations, the description discloses that the return shape is from vendor docs and unverified, that event type_ids are numeric and require resolution via sportmonks_types, that include controls response composition, and that authentication requires a SPORTMONKS_TOKEN. These are valuable caveats for safe invocation.

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 front-loaded with 'One fixture' and every subsequent element—return shape, vendor caveat, example, auth note—earns its place. It is dense but not bloated.

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 no output schema, the description covers the expected response shape, the unverified vendor-doc status, numeric type_id resolution via sportmonks_types, an example, and auth requirements. This is sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool with appropriate expectations.

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 already fully documents both parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'include' determines whether lineups, events, and statistics are present, and by giving a concrete example include string. This elevates understanding beyond the schema's example.

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?

Clearly states it returns a single fixture ('One fixture') and explains that the include parameter controls whether lineups, events, and statistics are returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sportmonks_fixtures_by_date, which fetches multiple fixtures.

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?

Provides clear context that this is for a single fixture lookup with include-driven response richness. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like sportmonks_fixtures_by_date or when to prefer other sportmonks tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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