sportsbet_bet_live

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

The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and a return format specification, which are useful beyond the annotations. The annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so additional behavioral context is minimal but present.

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 concise lines: purpose, return format, and auth. It front-loads the primary purpose and avoids any redundant or verbose content.

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?

Provides purpose, return structure, and auth requirements. With 100% schema coverage and readOnly annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for a simple feed tool, though it omits optional details like pagination or data freshness.

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 descriptions fully cover all three parameters with clear explanations. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is 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 description clearly states it returns a 'BetLive feed — events currently in-play and bettable live' and specifies the return shape. This distinguishes it from other sportsbet tools focused on markets or racecards, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, but 'currently in-play and bettable live' implies the intended use case. It lacks exclusions or alternative tool references, so it falls at the 'implied usage' level.

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