get_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses cost (1 credit, charged only when games come back), error behavior (typo in include is rejected), empty results for unsupported sports, and semantics of named totals (null until complete, sum by_period for running total). This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The description is compact yet covers purpose, usage, cost, coverage, parameters, and result semantics. It is well-structured with clear line breaks and no redundant information.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values in detail. It covers essential operational context: cost, coverage limits, parameter semantics, and the meaning of live totals. This is fully sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 must compensate. It explains status values ('all (default), live, concluded or upcoming') and include ('scores, players, or both (default)') with typo behavior. It references list_sports for valid sport values, though it doesn't enumerate them. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Live scores and player stats for one sport.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_odds by noting coverage differences and referencing list_sports for sports that have results. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this for current scores, whether a game has finished, and player statistics, rather than answering from memory or searching.' Also provides exclusion context by mentioning that results cover fewer sports than odds and that list_sports marks which ones have them, implying when not to use.

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