Get match odds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that values are 'fair' model-derived probabilities based on team form, Elo delta, and xG performance, not market odds. However, it does not state the output format, what happens when no parameters are provided, pagination, or any rate-limit/safety context.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the key deliverable: fair 1X2 and over/under 2.5 probabilities. It is concise and readable, though it could be slightly expanded to include usage context without hurting clarity.

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?

All three parameters are optional and there is no output schema, yet the description does not explain default behavior, response shape, or how to choose among parameters. Given this ambiguity, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently in all valid cases.

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 parameters date, matchId, and competition are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and output: fair 1X2 and over/under 2.5 probabilities for matches. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like lineups, events, xG, or standings, none of which provide odds. The title reinforces the purpose, making the tool's function unmistakable.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus siblings such as openfoot_matches or openfoot_match_context. It does not mention alternative tools, exclusions, or context for which odds/probabilities would be appropriate. The only implied use is from the name and title.

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