top_matches

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld and idempotent, so safety is covered. The description contributes the hard cap of 10 results and the Prematch-only caveat for sport scoping, which is genuine added context, but says nothing about ordering/freshness or how 'popular' is determined beyond the '(API order)' hint in the schema.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the 10-match popularity scope front-loaded before the use-case gloss. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 an all-optional, four-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials plus the result cap. It slightly under-serves by not clarifying ranking/freshness semantics or the live-vs-prematch differentiation that line_type exposes.

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 sport_id, line_type, include_odds and max_markets_per_match. The description only restates the sport_id Prematch-only restriction, adding no new parameter meaning beyond the structured fields; baseline 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 names a concrete resource and quantifies scope: 'up to 10 most popular matches right now.' It is clearly a curated popularity-ranked list, distinct from list_live_matches/list_prematch_matches, but it never names those siblings to sharpen the distinction.

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 framing 'a quick answer to "what are the big games?"' implies the discovery/browse use case, which is helpful implied guidance. However it gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives routing, e.g. why to pick this over list_live_matches or search_matches.

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