icare_live_matchesTrack live esports matches with Win/Lose prices, pot, closing time, and recent results plus referee proofs. Optionally include settled or refunded matches.
Followed live matches with Win/Lose prices, pot, closing time, and recent results with their referee proof.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| includeFinished | No | Also return recent settled or refunded matches |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the returned data set, including recent results and referee proof, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it streams or polls live data, or any rate or auth constraints.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that names the resource and its key fields without filler. Every element of the sentence contributes useful information for an agent.
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 listing tool with no output schema and one fully documented parameter, the description gives a good summary of the returned fields. It could be more complete by explaining the live update cadence or how includeFinished affects the result, but it is largely sufficient for 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter includeFinished is fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'recent results' but adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 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 states a specific resource (live ICARE matches) and enumerates the data returned (Win/Lose prices, pot, closing time, recent results with referee proof). It clearly distinguishes live-match data from sibling tools like icare_bet, icare_sell, or icare_positions, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get'.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as icare_season or icare_positions. The description implies a live-match listing context but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when includeFinished should be set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.