Get the national college baseball Top 25 returned by the rankings source. Includes rank, team, record, movement, source, and fetch time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds value by describing the return contents (rank, team, record, movement, source, fetch time), which is useful given no output schema exists. It does not contradict annotations.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that names the resource and lists included fields. No wasted words; every part carries information.
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 a simple no-input read-only tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns and the context for its use. Sibling names further situate it in the broader API.
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 schema coverage is complete. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output rather than adding parameter meaning.
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 gets the national college baseball Top 25 from the rankings source, listing key included fields (rank, team, record, movement, source, fetch time). This distinguishes it from siblings like standings or scoreboard.
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 implies usage for retrieving rankings, and the sibling tool names provide context for when this would be appropriate. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative comparisons, but the context is clear enough for a simple no-parameter tool.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource: game details, player stats, rankings, scoreboard, standings, team schedules, and web search. There is no overlap between these purposes, and the descriptions make the boundaries clear.
Six tools follow a consistent 'bsi_get_<resource>' pattern, while 'bsi_search_intel' deviates by using 'search' instead of 'get'. This is a minor inconsistency but still readable and predictable overall.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped and each tool serves a distinct function. The count is appropriate for a sports information server, not too thin or overbearing.
The tool set covers major aspects of college baseball: games, players, rankings, live scores, standings, schedules, and narrative context via web search. No significant gaps are apparent, and the search tool provides a fallback for any uncovered queries.
