unibet_kambi_live_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, establishing the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the return shape ('Returns: {eventId, summary:{...live stats}}') and explicitly stating 'Auth: none needed,' which are not redundant with the structured annotations.

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, with each line serving a purpose: the opening line states the core function, the 'Returns' line clarifies the output shape, and the 'Auth' line addresses a common concern. No filler or redundant information.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by providing the return structure and noting that it includes scores and match summary. It also clarifies that no authentication is needed. However, it does not detail what fields are inside the summary or how lang/market parameters affect the response, leaving some ambiguity for a live-stats tool.

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%, with each parameter already documented in the input schema (e.g., eventId is described as 'Kambi event id (from a listView / betoffer call). Required — part of the URL path.'). The description itself does not add any new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 states the tool provides 'Live in-event statistics (scores, match summary) for one Kambi event,' specifying both the resource (Kambi event) and the scope (single event). It distinguishes itself from siblings like unibet_kambi_odds_ladder by focusing on live stats rather than odds, and mentions the return structure explicitly.

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 context by noting that eventId comes from 'a listView / betoffer call,' which tells the agent where to obtain the required input. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or competing tools in the same domain.

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