getPredictionSideMarketList

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context about what side markets are and that eventType=1 means FIFA_2026, going beyond the schema. No behavioral contradiction exists.

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 core information is clear and front-loaded, but the description is repetitive: 'side/auxiliary markets' and 'beyond match outcomes' are stated multiple times, and examples are redundantly repeated. It could be trimmed to two or three sentences without losing meaning.

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 simple read-only query with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains the returned concept, the usage purpose, and the only accepted parameter value.

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 schema provides only an enum of ['1'] with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by explaining that eventType=1 refers to FIFA_2026 and by framing it as the event type for which side markets should be queried.

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?

States a specific verb ('Query'), a specific resource ('list of side/related markets'), and clarifies its scope relative to match outcome predictions. The examples (top scorer, group winners, golden boot) and the emphasis on 'beyond match outcomes' distinguish it from sibling prediction-market 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?

Clearly says when to use this tool: to discover side/auxiliary markets and additional trading opportunities beyond match outcomes. It also provides the concrete eventType mapping to FIFA_2026. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives 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.