get_live_frame

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosures. It does provide useful latency/plan behavior (Sandbox, Hobby, Builder+), but it omits side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, and any caveats about the returned payload.

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 short, front-loaded sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second gives critical latency context. Every clause adds information and there is no filler.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented parameters, this is too thin. The agent still needs to discover valid sport codes, game_id provenance (likely via list_sports/get_live_games), and the response structure, none of which are mentioned.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source for parameter meaning. It explains that game_id selects a single game and indirectly mentions sport via 'Sandbox=CS2... all sports', but it does not define valid sport values, game_id format, or parameter relationships.

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 the resource (raw live NormalizedFrame) and scope (one game_id), making clear this returns a single live frame with metadata. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_live_events or get_live_boxscore, though it does not explicitly compare itself to them.

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 phrase 'for one game_id' and 'Raw live' imply this is for retrieving a raw live frame for a single game, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling live-data tools or how to obtain valid sport/game_id values.

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