Get Matchups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by specifying the content of the response (home/away IDs, totals, projections), which is not conveyed by annotations. No contradictions, and the added detail helps set expectations without overstepping.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the key output fields. Every word contributes value; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 the tool has an output schema and comprehensive parameter schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the essential return content and does not omit critical calling details. It could mention pagination or sorting, but these are not expected for a straightforward matchup list, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters, including the meaning of scoring_period_id ('Week (football) or day (basketball/baseball)'). The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb ('get'), the resource ('matchups'), and the scope ('for a scoring period'), and enumerates the specific data returned (home/away team ids, live/final totals, live projections). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_teams or get_boxscore by focusing on the matchup-level summary.

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 context (scoring period) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_boxscore or get_teams. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided; an agent would have to infer when matchups are needed vs. a single game's details.

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