Cito API

leaderboard_finals_record

Read-only

Tennis season finals-record leaderboard: Share of finals won (titles clutch) per player, from real completed finals rows, ordered highest pct first.

When to use:

Share of finals won (titles clutch) per player, from real completed finals rows, ordered highest pct first. season tables; clutch/serve-efficiency leader queries.

Prefer over: raw leaderboard via call_api for agent-normalized rows.

Do not use when: ranking position → standings with game tennis; week-over-week movement → rankings_movers; one player's recent form → player_form.

Tennis-only. Season defaults to 2026; tour (ATP|WTA) is optional — omit it for the combined board. Only players contesting at least 3 finals qualify.

Parallel-safe: yes. Upstream cost: 1.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "game": "<game>"
    },
    "name": "leaderboard_finals_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`game`	Yes	Game title: lol \| cs2 \| dota2 \| cod \| ufc \| tennis \| valorant. Example: "cs2".
`tour`	No	ATP or WTA tour; omit for the combined board. Synonym: division.
`limit`	No	Max items to return (default 10, max 100). Example: 10.
`season`	No	Season year (YYYY). Default 2026.
`division`	No	Synonym for tour (ATP or WTA), matching the standings tool spelling.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	true if the tool succeeded
`data`	No	Result payload when ok is true; null on error
`meta`	Yes
`error`	No
`partial`	No
`pagination`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 14, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / game / description

Previous value: -"Game title: lol | cs2 | dota2 | cod | ufc | tennis. Example: \"cs2\"."New value: +"Game title: lol | cs2 | dota2 | cod | ufc | tennis | valorant. Example: \"cs2\"."

changedInput schema / properties / game / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "lol",
-  "cs2",
-  "dota2",
-  "cod",
-  "ufc",
-  "tennis"
-]New value: +[
+  "lol",
+  "cs2",
+  "dota2",
+  "cod",
+  "ufc",
+  "tennis",
+  "valorant"
+]

AddedSep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true / destructiveHint=false / openWorldHint=true, it discloses provenance ("real completed finals rows"), a qualification threshold ("at least 3 finals"), a tennis-only scope, and operational metadata (parallel-safe, upstream cost 1). Those are genuine additions, though return shape and ordering tie-breaking are left to the output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded metric sentence followed by scannable when/prefer/do-not-use blocks is easy to parse. However, the first sentence is duplicated verbatim under "When to use," and "Tennis-only" plus the season/tour notes repeat schema content, so it is efficient but not waste-free.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With annotations declaring a safe read, an output schema present, and full schema description coverage, the description supplies everything an agent still needs: eligibility threshold, tennis-only constraint, tour-omission semantics, and routing exclusions. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents game, tour, limit, season, and division, including the ATP|WTA synonym and defaults. The description restates season default 2026 and the omit-tour combined board without adding format or validation nuance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: "Share of finals won (titles clutch) per player, from real completed finals rows, ordered highest pct first." It names the exact metric and its ordering, and explicitly contrasts with call_api raw leaderboards, so it is distinguishable from siblings like leaderboard_aces or leaderboard_tiebreak_win_pct without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use, a prefer-over rule (raw leaderboard via call_api), and three named do-not-use routes (standings, rankings_movers, player_form) with the condition that selects each. Almost nothing is left to inference.

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

All Cito API tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?