get_live_probabilities_by_fixture_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'live in-match probabilities' without explaining what 'live' implies (e.g., real-time updates, polling behavior) or disclosing any side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. It also omits the response format.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, its brevity sacrifices completeness; still, it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given 7 parameters (only 1 required) and no output schema, the description should elaborate on typical usage, pagination, or return values. It fails to provide enough context for an agent to confidently use the tool, especially among many similar sibling tools.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely names the resource. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents each parameter.

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 the tool retrieves 'live in-match probabilities for a specific fixture,' which is specific and uses an action verb. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get_probabilities_by_fixture_id' or 'get_live_probabilities', so it lacks sibling 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_probabilities_by_fixture_id' or 'get_inplay_odds_by_fixture_id'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when it should not be used.

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