footballpulse

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it is read-only. It leaves these aspects unclear.

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 relatively long, enumerating endpoints with prices. It is structured with bullet-like formatting but could be more concise. Some information could be moved to the schema or omitted.

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?

With 20 parameters, no output schema, and missing behavioral context, the description is not sufficiently complete. Critical aspects like how to combine parameters for different endpoints are not explained.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, many parameter descriptions are merely the parameter name (e.g., 'lang', 'home', 'away') without additional meaning. A few provide examples (e.g., line: 'e.g. -0.5'), but overall the descriptions add little value beyond the schema.

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 it is a global football/soccer betting intelligence API with specific endpoints. The name 'footballpulse' distinguishes it from siblings like 'alphapulse' or 'marketpulse'.

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 lists distinct endpoints with brief use-case explanations (e.g., 'match preview — team form, H2H, injuries'). While it doesn't explicitly compare to siblings, the specificity to football is evident.

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