theoddsapi_scores

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds critical context: the exact return shape, that scores is null until game start, score values are strings, and a warning that the shape is unverified from vendor docs. It also explicitly mentions auth requirements. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with purpose, return type, note, example, and auth sections. It front-loads the core purpose and each section earns its place, though it is slightly verbose. Still efficient for the complexity involved.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully specifies the return shape, data types, null behavior, and provides an example. It also flags the unverified vendor doc shape, which is crucial for agent decision-making. The tool is simple enough that this is 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description's example adds a mild illustration but does not introduce new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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 opens with 'Live and recently-completed scores for a competition', which uses a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this scores tool from sibling tools like theoddsapi_odds and theoddsapi_events.

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 provides clear context and a concrete example (EPL scores with sport and daysFrom), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It implies usage via the example but lacks direct comparisons to sibling tools.

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