Prediction-market signal

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the read-only nature, the time window for data availability, and the prohibition on advice. Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description elaborates on use constraints.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds constraints and advice concisely. Every sentence earns its place.

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's complexity (6 optional params, output schema exists), the description covers the key behaviors: when to use, what it returns, and informational boundaries. It does not detail every edge case but is sufficient for a read-only tool with good annotations.

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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the three query modes (matchId, team, date) and their context, which helps the agent understand parameter interplay without repeating schema details.

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 reads prediction-market signals for a match by id, team, or date, and returns market-implied percentages with attribution. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on raw match data or brackets.

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 specifies that signals are only shown before and during a match, not after, and warns against adding betting or value advice. It could be improved by explicitly naming sibling tools for alternative queries, but the constraints are clear.

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