unibet_kambi_live_stats

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it documents the return shape ({eventId, summary}) and auth behavior (works without a key, optional token unlocks more). This meaningfully helps an agent predict the tool's behavior.

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: a one-line purpose, a return snippet, and an auth note. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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, read-only stats tool with no output schema, the description provides enough orientation: what it returns, auth expectations, and that it targets a single event. It could be more explicit about the contents of the summary object, but the tool's scope is low-complexity and the annotations cover safety semantics.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including defaults and the required eventId. The description does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it does clarify that the tool operates on 'one Kambi event,' matching the eventId parameter.

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 in-event statistics (scores, match summary) for a single Kambi event. It is specific about the resource and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like unibet_kambi_odds_ladder, though it lacks an explicit action verb.

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 implies usage: call this when you need live stats for one Kambi event. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as unibet_kambi_call or unibet_kambi_odds_ladder, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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