parlayapi_live_sports

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no API key is required and describes what is returned (sport keys plus live event and book counts). For a simple, parameterless read-style tool, this is adequate transparency, though it does not discuss refresh timing or whether the list is exhaustive.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds meaningful information: what it lists, that no API key is needed, and what the response contains.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is complete for safe invocation. It states the endpoint concept, auth requirement (no API key), output contents, and high-level purpose. The output schema can cover the detailed return shape, so no meaningful gap exists.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully describes the input contract. The description adds relevant context by stating no API key is required, which is useful operational information. This aligns with the baseline 4 for a no-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource: currently active live sports on the retail /live surface. It also clarifies that it returns sport keys plus live event/book counts, which clearly separates it from siblings like parlayapi_list_sports or parlayapi_live_search.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to discover what live sports are currently active on the retail /live surface. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can reasonably select it without confusion.

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