getPredictionGroupStageDetail

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so no contradiction exists. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining what type of data will be returned and by decoding eventType=1 as FIFA_2026, which goes beyond the raw schema.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and return type, but it becomes repetitive later with multiple restatements of the same agent hint and betting-context guidance. A more compact version would convey the same information with less 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?

For a read-only query tool with two enum-constrained parameters and no output schema, the description gives sufficient context: what it returns, which stageCodes are valid, where to get stageCode, and what eventType=1 means. It does not deep-dive into output field details, but the summary is adequate for invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning: stageCode selects the tournament stage and should come from getPredictionTimelineStages, and eventType=1 corresponds to FIFA_2026. The enum values are repeated in the schema, but the semantic connection to the timeline tool and event meaning is additional 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: query detailed standings and match results for a tournament stage, returning group tables or bracket information. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like getPredictionMatchList.

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 tells the agent when to use the tool: to provide context about team performance for prediction bets, and to get group standings or knockout results. It also tells the agent to source stageCode from getPredictionTimelineStages. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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