sm_odds_inplay

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Get' hints at a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm that no data is modified, nor does it disclose how modes affect the response, pagination behavior, or potential errors. The mode list provides minimal behavioral context but is insufficient for full transparency.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the modes. Every word serves a function, with no unnecessary detail or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain the return format, how modes affect the data, or which parameters are required for each mode. The tool is moderately complex, and the description does not provide enough context for correct invocation without additional knowledge.

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 for parameter understanding. It merely repeats the mode enum values from the schema without explaining how parameters like fixtureId, marketId, bookmakerId, page, and include relate to each mode. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving interactions between modes and parameters ambiguous.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('live in-play odds from SportMonks'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like sm_odds_prematch by specifying 'in-play', and the mode list further defines its capabilities.

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 implies usage for retrieving live in-play odds but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain which mode to choose for different scenarios. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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