sportsbet_competition_matches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the return schema and the auth requirement ('Auth: none needed'), which are valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose, a return shape, and an auth note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers the purpose, return shape, and auth requirement. It does not specify event ordering or time frame, but these are not critical given the simple scope and the openWorldHint annotation.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single parameter competitionId with a description noting it is required and part of the URL path. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so reliance on the schema 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 states the tool returns 'Match-type events for a sport competition', clearly identifying the resource (matches) and the scope (by competition). It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but the context makes the operation clear and the phrase 'match-type' helps distinguish it from related tools like outrights or results.

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 implies the tool is used to fetch match events for a specific competition, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Sibling tools like sportsbet_event_results or sportsbet_competition_outrights serve different purposes, but the description does not mention when to choose this one over them.

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