sportsbet_bet_live

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It does specify the return structure, which helps set expectations. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, whether the tool is read-only, or what happens when no live events exist. The behavioral context is partially covered.

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 concise with two sentences. It front-loads the purpose and then provides the return shape. However, it could be improved by using structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) for readability.

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 complexity of three parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It provides the return shape but lacks crucial context about parameter usage, prerequisites, and behavior in edge cases (e.g., empty results). An agent would likely make errors without additional information.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It fails to mention any of the three parameters (birType, excludeNonLiveEvents, includePrimaryMarket). Without this, an agent cannot know how to filter or modify the request, making the tool difficult to use correctly.

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 it provides a feed of live, in-play bettable events. The verb 'feed' implies a stream of data, and it specifies the scope 'currently in-play and bettable live'. This distinguishes it from other sportsbet tools that deal with racecards, competitions, or future events.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many similar sportsbet tools, but the description does not mention any selection criteria, exclusions, or contextual hints.

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