sportmonks_livescores

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the return shape is from vendor docs and not verified against a live response, warning the agent to treat it as approximate. It also explains how to interpret periods[].ticking for running vs. paused clocks, and mentions the required auth token. These details provide practical behavioral context that annotations alone lack.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, return shape, caveat, example, and auth note. Each section serves a purpose, though it is slightly verbose with the unverified shape note and example. It is not bloated, but could be tightened without losing value.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the return structure, usage example, auth requirements, and a reliability caveat. This is comprehensive enough for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the response correctly, even without prior knowledge of the Sportmonks API.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's example with include='participants;scores' demonstrates usage but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema's example ('participants;scores;events'). It is somewhat redundant, so no higher score is warranted.

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 opens with 'Fixtures in progress now,' which clearly identifies it as a live/in-progress fixtures tool. This distinguishes it from siblings like sportmonks_fixtures_by_date and sportmonks_fixture by focusing on the current time. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 gives clear context for when to use it (live/in-play fixtures) and includes a concrete usage example with the include parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as needing fixtures for a specific date (use sportmonks_fixtures_by_date) or a single fixture (use sportmonks_fixture).

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