sportsbet_bet_live

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: no API key is required, a refresh token unlocks more data if set, and the return shape is disclosed. No contradiction with 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 three short, dense lines: purpose, return shape, and auth behavior. Each sentence earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 an optional-parameter read-only feed, the description sufficiently covers purpose, output structure, and auth requirements. It could clarify what 'unlocks more' means or default filtering behavior, but nothing essential is missing given the schema and annotations.

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?

All three parameters are documented in the input schema with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to restate them. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 first line identifies a BetLive feed of events currently in-play and bettable live, which is a clear, specific resource scope. It distinguishes itself from historical or upcoming event tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool.

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 makes it clear this is the tool for Sportsbet's current live, bettable events, and the auth note adds practical context about when extra data becomes available. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming alternative live-feed tools.

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