getPredictionMatchList

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

The description mentions return fields (teams, time, status, prediction markets) but does not disclose limitations (e.g., max matches, pagination) or clarify that filtering by matchStatus is a client-side operation since the input schema only includes eventType. With no annotations, the description bears full burden but is incomplete.

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 mostly efficient, with front-loaded purpose and structured hints. However, the filtering advice 'Filter by matchStatus' is placed in a hint yet is not supported by the schema, introducing unnecessary confusion. Otherwise, sentences are concise.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description must detail return values. It mentions teams, time, status, and prediction markets but lacks specifics like field names or types. More critically, it advises filtering by matchStatus despite the schema having no such parameter, creating a dangerous mismatch. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool reliably.

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 0% for the only parameter eventType. The description adds the example 'eventType=1 for FIFA 2026' but does not explain the parameter's meaning generally or note that it is fixed to '1' per the schema enum. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 queries all matches for a sports event with status and prediction market info. However, it also suggests filtering by matchStatus, which is not a parameter in the input schema, creating ambiguity about the tool's actual capability. The verb 'Query' and resource 'matches' are specific.

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 explicit usage context: showing available matches to bet on, and points to related tools like getPredictionEventDetail. It gives filtering hints for matchStatus and advises against showing Ended matches. However, it does not clearly differentiate from other prediction tools or state when not to use this tool.

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