sportsbet_event_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure and indicates 'Live' status, implying real-time data. However, it does not mention any side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or whether the data is cached. This is acceptable for a simple read operation but lacks thoroughness.

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: two sentences that front-load the purpose and follow with the return shape. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition. It is well-structured for quick consumption.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 required param, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the essential purpose and return fields. However, it does not clarify data types for inPlay and suspended (e.g., boolean), possible values beyond examples, or how to interpret the status field. It is minimally viable but not thoroughly complete.

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 schema defines only eventId (integer) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what eventId represents, where to obtain it, or any constraints (e.g., format, source). It adds no value beyond the schema's type information, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's role.

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 'live status flags' for a sport event and lists the return fields (eventId, status, inPlay, suspended) along with example statuses (suspended, in-play, settled). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that return markets, results, or race data. However, it could be more explicit about the verb, e.g., 'Get live status flags'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given many sibling tools exist, this omission leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage.

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