sportsbet_competition_matches

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it states the auth requirements and that setting SPORTSBET_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocks more. The phrase 'unlocks more' is vague, but it still provides meaningful operational information an agent would not get from annotations alone.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by the return shape and auth note. Every line earns its place; there is 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 single-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers the essentials: what is returned and how authentication behaves. It could be stronger by explaining what 'unlocks more' means or listing alternative tools, but the provided details are sufficient for basic invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already says competitionId is a required integer that is part of the URL path. The description does not add meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource as 'match-type events' for a sport competition and includes a concrete return shape. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'get,' and it doesn't name sibling tools to differentiate itself, though 'match-type' does implicitly separate it from outright-style endpoints.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as sportsbet_competition_outrights or sportsbet_sport_competition. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the name and the word 'match-type,' so an agent gets little routing help.

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