get_fanmatch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does mention the return object and the default date behavior, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects or error conditions. For a simple data retrieval tool, this is a moderate gap in transparency.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with a one-sentence purpose, then an explanatory line, and then a clean Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds value, and the parameter documentation is placed efficiently in the Args section.

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 is simple with one optional parameter, and the description covers purpose, parameter, and return value. Given that an output schema exists (indicated by context signals), the description does not need to detail the return structure further. A brief note about potential error cases (e.g., no games on the date) would have made it fully complete, but it is otherwise sufficient.

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 has zero coverage, but the description fully compensates by specifying the 'date' parameter format ('YYYY-MM-DD'), giving an example, and explaining the default value ('today's date'). This completely resolves any ambiguity about parameter usage.

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 function retrieves FanMatch game predictions for a specific date, including scores, spreads, and game information. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on FanMatch predictions and all games for a date, making it specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need FanMatch predictions for a given date. It also notes that the date defaults to today, which is practical. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the clarity of the domain makes the intended usage obvious.

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