Prediction-market signal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that the signals are informational only, with explicit constraints on usage (no betting advice, no invented links), and discloses the temporal availability (only before/during match). No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences: first defines purpose and parameters, second specifies availability, third gives behavioral instructions. No fluff, well front-loaded.

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 description covers purpose, parameters, availability, and return type (percentages with attribution). It lacks explicit output structure details, but given no output schema and the clarity of the description, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

All 6 parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds valuable context for the matchId, team resolution logic, default date, timezone, locale, and flair options, going beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 it provides read-only prediction-market signals with specific identifiers (match id, team, or date). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_live or get_standings by focusing solely on market-implied percentages.

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 explicitly states that signals are only available before and during a match, and instructs the agent not to add betting advice or invent links. It does not compare directly to sibling tools but provides clear context for appropriate use.

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