sportsbet_event_results

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

The description discloses that auth is not needed, which is useful context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also specifies the exact return structure (event with finalScore, markets with winningSelections), giving the agent a clear picture of what to expect. There is no mention of error handling for unfinished events, but annotations already cover safety, and the description adds meaningful detail.

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 compact sections: a one-sentence purpose, a return type sketch, and an auth note. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately includes a return shape for both the event and markets, fulfilling the need to explain output. It also states auth requirements, which are useful for invocation decisions. However, it does not specify behavior for invalid IDs or whether markets are always present, so it is slightly short of a perfect score.

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 already fully documents the single eventId parameter, including that it is required and part of the URL path. The description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond that, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies. The mention of eventId in the return structure is incidental and does not explain the parameter further.

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 opens with 'Results for a finished sport event (final score + settled markets)', which clearly specifies the verb (returns results), resource (sport event), and scope (finished events, final score, markets). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sportsbet_event_status and sportsbet_event_markets, which likely target different aspects.

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 phrase 'finished sport event' provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving results after an event concludes. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to choose this for completed events. No exclusions are stated, so per the rubric this aligns with 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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