Fetch one FanDuel API doc by id from search. The fetch shape ChatGPT connectors use. No key.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "fetch"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Id from search. |
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. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait—"No key" (no authentication required) and read-style retrieval—but says nothing about rate limits, error behavior, or whether the returned document is raw or processed. For a simple read tool that is partial coverage, not full.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no padding. The sentence "The fetch shape ChatGPT connectors use" is slightly cryptic and arguably does not earn its place, which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations this is barely adequate. It does not say what the response contains (the doc body) nor resolve the ambiguity with the nearly identically named fetch_doc sibling, which is the main thing an agent needs here.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as "Id from search." The description merely repeats that origin ("by id from search") without adding format, source, or validity rules. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("Fetch one FanDuel API doc by id"), which is better than a tautology, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings named fetch_doc, search, and search_docs. An agent scanning the tool list cannot tell which of these to pick from the description alone.
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?
"by id from search" implies the id must come from a prior search call, which is a weak but real prerequisite hint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer fetch_doc or search_docs, and no statement of what happens with an invalid or missing id.
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.