odds_get_scores

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

The description discloses the ~30s update cadence and cost behavior, which is valuable. However, the opening statement 'recently completed game scores' conflicts with the later 'Use daysFrom (1-3) to include completed games' and the schema's 'Without this, only live + upcoming are returned', creating ambiguity about whether completed games are included by default. This internal inconsistency undermines clarity.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, refresh rate, and parameter/cost guidance. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Lacking an output schema and annotations, the description provides essential context: update rate, cost, and daysFrom behavior. It is slightly incomplete due to the ambiguity around 'recently completed' and the lack of any return-format indicators, but for a scores tool it is largely sufficient.

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 100%, and the description adds cost semantics to daysFrom (cost 1 without, 2 with) and reinforces that daysFrom controls inclusion of completed games. It does not add meaning to sport or eventIds beyond the schema, but those are already adequately described.

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 opens with 'Get live scores and recently completed game scores', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like odds_get_odds or odds_get_events, and the update-frequency detail further clarifies the live-scores aspect.

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 explicitly instructs to use daysFrom (1-3) to include completed games and even notes the cost difference (1 vs 2 credits). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusionary guidance (e.g., 'use odds_get_odds for odds instead').

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