Footdigest: who is suspended for their next match and who is one booking away from a ban in a competition, per the competition's fair-play rules. 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's output (suspended players, those one booking away) but does not mention side effects, permissions, or read-only nature. For a read-only retrieval tool, this is minimally acceptable.
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?
The description is concise and to the point, using a single sentence to convey the tool's purpose and requirement. It lacks structure but is efficient.
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 the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main functionality. However, without an output schema, it would benefit from describing the response format or potential edge cases.
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% with a description for the only parameter. The description adds 'Give the competition slug,' which reinforces but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's example.
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 provides suspension watch information, including who is suspended and who is one booking away, per competition fair-play rules. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_standings 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?
The description instructs the user to provide the competition slug, but does not explicitly list when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. The context is clear enough for the intended use case.
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.
