get_live_boxscore

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing data freshness and tier-dependent behavior: Sandbox is 30-60s delayed, Hobby is 5s delayed, and Builder+ is real-time. It also reveals what data is included in the response, though it does not discuss auth, side effects, or return shape.

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?

Three dense sentences deliver core content, an important usage pattern, and tier-specific latency information with no filler. The most important identifying information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what data is returned, how to list live games, and what latency to expect per plan. The main gap is the lack of an explicit allowed/expected sport value list, which matters because sport is the only required parameter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for game_id by explaining that omitting it lists live games, and it hints at valid sports via CS2, LoL, and Deadlock. However, it never gives the exact accepted sport values or game_id format, leaving a partial gap.

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 a specific resource: a live in-game boxscore with K/D/A and sport-native details like CS2 money/bomb, LoL gold/towers, and Deadlock gold/CS/level. It is specific enough to be understood, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_live_frame or get_boxscore.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Omit game_id to list live games' tells the agent when the optional parameter can be dropped. It also gives environment-specific guidance with the Sandbox/Hobby/Builder+ latency tiers, but it does not mention when to prefer a sibling tool over this one.

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