get_live_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does add valuable timing behavior (sandbox 30-60s delay, hobby 5s, builder+ real-time). However, it does not disclose whether the result is a one-time snapshot or a stream, how events are returned, or any auth/rate-limit implications.

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 two terse sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the resource and content, the second adds plan-dependent latency. No wasted words and the core scope is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete about what events and latency to expect. It is incomplete in that it leaves the delivery/response model unspecified and requires the agent to guess at parameter values, given a large sibling family of live 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description only implicitly suggests game_id identifies the match; it does not explain the range or format of sport, whether sport maps to a specific enum, or where to get valid game_id values. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 clear resource ('live events for one game_id') and content scope (kills, bomb, towers, roshan, round wins) that separates it conceptually from stats/odds/boxscore siblings. It lacks an explicit contrast with sibling tools like get_live_frame or get_live_boxscore, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives; sibling live-event tools are not mentioned. The latency-tier note is operational context, not usage direction, and there are no exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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