list_booksSportsbooks SquadRide can open, with health from the daily port check.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_books"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response format is, or what 'health' means. The phrase 'daily port check' hints at data source but is not explained, leaving the tool's behavior opaque.
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 a single sentence, but it is poorly structured and not front-loaded with the core action. It leads with a possessive phrase rather than a clear verb, and the health clause is distracting. While brief, it sacrifices clarity for brevity, which is not effective conciseness.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description should be self-sufficient. However, it fails to explain what the tool actually returns, what 'health' refers to, or how 'daily port check' affects results. An agent cannot confidently predict the tool's behavior from this description.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers all inputs. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable since there are none. Baseline 4 is appropriate because no parameter documentation is needed.
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 'Sportsbooks SquadRide can open, with health from the daily port check' is vague and does not clearly state the action. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', and the health/port check clause confuses rather than clarifies. The title is clearer, but the description adds ambiguity about what is being returned.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools get_slip and translate_bets. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or specific use cases, leaving the agent to infer suitability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.