sportsbet_event_status

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds useful context beyond those hints: it specifies the exact return fields and explains authentication requirements, noting that a Sportsbet refresh token can unlock additional functionality without being required.

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 well structured: purpose first, then return shape, then auth behavior. Every line provides distinct value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential call context: what it does, what it returns, and how authentication behaves. It does not document detailed field types or all possible status values, but the provided return object and examples 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?

The input schema already fully documents the single required parameter, eventId, including its type and that it is part of the URL path. The description adds no additional meaning for this parameter, 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 tool as returning live status flags for a sport event, listing the key statuses (suspended, in-play, settled). It distinguishes the tool from sibling market/result/commentary tools through the explicit focus on status, though it does not use an explicit verb like 'get' or name any sibling.

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 intended use case is implied: call this tool when you need the current status flags of a sportsbet event. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related event tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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