Get odds and fair probabilities

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or what side effects (if any) exist. The 'Informational only' phrase hints at a read operation, but it is framed as a disclaimer, not a behavioral guarantee. Since nothing is disclosed beyond the data being informational, the transparency is inadequate.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the core function and includes the necessary disclaimer. Every word serves a purpose; there is no fluff or repetition. It is concise and structurally efficient.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description conveys the essential purpose. However, it omits any detail about the return format (e.g., what odds are included, how probabilities are presented) or preconditions (e.g., whether the match must be completed). For a synthetic-odds tool, this is a notable gap, but given the simplicity, a minimum-viable score of 3 is fair.

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?

The input schema has one parameter, matchId, with 100% schema description coverage ('Match id'). The tool description does not add any extra meaning about matchId's format, source, or how it relates to the output. Given full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description offers no added semantic value.

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 specific verb+resource: it 'gets odds and fair probabilities for one match.' The 'for one match' scoping differentiates it from sibling tools like footballstack_matches or footballstack_match_xg, which cover broader or different data. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions 'Informational only — not betting advice,' which is a disclaimer, not a usage condition. There is no explicit context about when a user should select this over, say, footballstack_match_xg or footballstack_league_xg.

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