Footdigest: current group standings for a competition, points, goal difference, position, and qualification status per team. Give the competition slug (e.g. "world-cup-2026"), optionally a single group code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | No | Optional group code, e.g. A. | |
| competition | Yes | Competition slug, e.g. world-cup-2026. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It describes the tool as returning current standings, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor disclose any auth needs or rate limits. The 'current' implies no side effects, but could be more explicit.
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?
Two sentences, no extraneous words. First sentence states purpose and output, second explains parameters. Efficient and 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?
Given no output schema and only 2 parameters, description covers inputs and outputs adequately. It could mention default behavior when no group is provided, but overall complete for the tool's simplicity.
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 description adds examples for both parameters (e.g., 'world-cup-2026' for competition, 'A' for group), providing more context than schema alone.
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 group standings including points, goal difference, position, and qualification status per team. It specifies the resource (competition standings) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_bracket or get_schedule.
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?
Description tells the agent to provide the competition slug and optionally a group code, implying when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for selection.
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.
