get_standingsCurrent standings per group/structure, tiebreak-ordered (wins → head-to-head → set diff → game diff; americano: total points).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tournament_key | Yes | The tournament's organiser key (starts with tk_) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| standings | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey safe read-only behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying the tiebreak ordering (wins → head-to-head → set diff → game diff; americano: total points), which is not present in annotations or 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?
One dense sentence fully conveys the tool's output and ordering rules. No wasted words; highly front-loaded.
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 output schema already specifies return structure, and the description covers behavioral nuances (grouping, tiebreaks) that matter for interpretation. With a single well-documented parameter, this is complete.
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 100% and the parameter description is clear ('tournament_key' starts with tk_). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool provides current standings per group/structure, with explicit tiebreak ordering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_results (match results) and get_schedule (fixtures).
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 gives clear context (standings data) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. The purpose is obvious, but no exclusions or sibling tool references are provided.
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.
Several tools serve overlapping purposes: get_pdf and get_pdf_link both return PDF artifacts, get_schedule and list_matches both provide match scheduling info, and get_results vs. get_standings can be confused for finished tournaments. However, the descriptions clarify the distinctions (embedded vs. link, upcoming vs. all matches, final vs. current standings), and roster-management tools are clearly separated by action.
All 30 tools consistently use lowercase snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_tournament, record_results, withdraw_player). The only slight variation is the mix of get_* and list_* for read operations, but that's a common and predictable convention. There are no camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.
With 30 tools, the server exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25. While the domain is complex, this count is heavy and may overwhelm agents, especially since several tools could be consolidated (e.g., get_pdf/get_pdf_link, get_schedule/list_matches). A more streamlined set around 20 tools would be more appropriate.
The tool set provides comprehensive lifecycle coverage for tournament management: create/delete/end tournaments, manage players (add, remove, replace, withdraw, promote, update), generate draws, record results, handle doubles pairs, reschedule, retrieve standings/schedule/results, export/PDF, audit log, undo changes, and feedback. No major gaps are apparent for the stated purpose.