get_match_prediction_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what data is returned but does not mention side effects, permissions, or read-only nature. For a tool that likely performs a read operation, this is insufficient.

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 sentence listing the returned items without extraneous text. It is efficient but could be structured with bullets or separated concerns.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and many siblings, the description adequately lists returned data but does not explain the 'prediction context' unifying theme or when to choose this over narrower tools.

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 description adds that matchId 'may be an ID or FotMob URL', which provides context beyond the schema's type specification. However, with 0% schema description coverage, more parameter guidance (e.g., URL format) would be beneficial.

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 lists specific data items (clock, events, lineups, etc.) that the tool retrieves, using the verb 'Get' with a clear resource name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_match_stats or get_team_form, which focus on narrower aspects.

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 like get_match_stats or get_team_form. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where other tools are preferred.

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