sportsbet_competition_matches

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose behaviors such as whether it returns only upcoming matches, data freshness, rate limits, or if the competitionId is a Sportsbet-specific ID. The return format is given but no behavioral traits beyond that.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second shows the return format concisely. Could be slightly more structured by front-loading the parameter requirement, but overall efficient.

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 simple tool, the description gives the return shape. However, it lacks explanation of the input parameter and usage context. Given no output schema, it is moderately complete but has clear gaps in parameter semantics and behavioral context.

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% and the description does not mention the competitionId parameter at all. It fails to explain what competitionId represents or how to obtain it, leaving the agent with no semantic help beyond the parameter name.

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 'match-type events' for a sport competition and gives the return structure. It distinguishes from siblings like sportsbet_competition_outrights, but could be more explicit about 'match-type' meaning scheduled fixtures. The verb 'returns' is implied, not explicitly stated.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sportsbet_event_markets, sportsbet_event_results, or similar tools from other providers. No mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites (e.g., competitionId must exist). The description is silent on usage context.

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