Footdigest: a competition's knockout bracket, matches grouped by round (round of 32 through the final) with teams, scores, shootouts, status, and winners. Give the competition slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| competition | Yes | Competition slug, e.g. world-cup-2026. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, but description fully discloses what the tool returns (rounds, teams, scores, etc.) and that it is a read operation. Does not mention side effects or permissions, acceptable for a simple get tool.
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 sentence, no fluff except 'Footdigest:' branding which is unnecessary. Gets straight to the point, but could be shorter without brand.
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?
Describes output comprehensively (rounds, teams, scores, shootouts, status, winners). No output schema, so description suffices. Lacks error handling info, but fine for simple retrieval.
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 has 100% description coverage with an example. Description adds 'Give the competition slug', which reinforces but adds minimal new meaning. Baseline 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?
Description clearly states it returns a competition's knockout bracket, grouped by round with match details. Uses specific verb 'get' and resource 'bracket'. Differentiates well from siblings like get_schedule or get_standings.
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?
Implies usage by stating 'Give the competition slug' but no explicit when/when-not or alternatives. Sibling tools provide context but description lacks direct guidance.
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 aspect of football competition analysis—brackets, match details, probabilities, standings, injuries, etc.—with no overlapping purposes that would confuse an agent.
Most tools follow a consistent 'get_' prefix with descriptive noun phrases, but 'simulate' deviates from the pattern, and 'get_head_to_head' uses hyphens. Overall, the naming is clear and predictable.
With 14 tools, the set feels well-scoped for a football competition analytics server. Each tool serves a clear purpose, covering predictions, match data, standings, and team status without unnecessary clutter.
The tool surface covers all major areas of competition analysis: schedules, standings, brackets, head-to-head, match details (including AI briefs), probabilities, model auditing, qualification scenarios, tournament odds, simulations, suspensions, and injuries. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.
