get_sports_scoresReturns current and recent scores for Arizona sports teams — Cardinals (NFL), Suns (NBA), D-backs (MLB), Mercury (WNBA), ASU Sun Devils, Arizona Wildcats, NAU Lumberjacks, and UFC events. Powered by ESPN.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team | No | Filter by team — omit for all Arizona teams |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scores | Yes | ||
| updated | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds little beyond stating it returns current and recent scores. The source (ESPN) is extra context but not behavioral. Given strong annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 with no wasted words. Lists all teams concisely and includes the data source. Front-loaded with purpose and scope.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Annotations cover safety and idempotency. The description is complete for a simple read-only tool, specifying scope, teams, and source.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with an enum and description for the only parameter. The description's note about omitting team for all teams is already covered by the schema description. No additional semantic value is added.
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 it returns current and recent scores for specific Arizona sports teams, listing the teams and leagues. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools that cover other domains like weather or music.
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 domain is clear from the context of sibling tools, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the team list and specificity make it obvious that it's for Arizona sports scores only.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct across categories (radio, local info, spiritual, listener management), but there is notable overlap: get_emergency_alerts and get_nws_alerts both provide alerts, and get_or_create_listener overlaps with register_listener. Also, get_chakra_frequencies, get_chakra_guide, and get_solfeggio are very similar. While descriptions help differentiate, agents may still struggle to select the right tool.
All tool names consistently use lowercase snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_weather, submit_song_request, log_listener_history). The verbs are predictable (get, search, submit, log, register, update) and there are no deviations like camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.
With 45 tools, the set is overgrown for a radio station server. Many tools are hyper-specific (e.g., separate tools for chakra frequencies, guide, and solfeggio; moon phase, sun times, and stargazing conditions). Consolidating similar functions would reduce cognitive load and improve coherence.
The tool set covers a broad range: radio operations, listener management, local news/weather, outdoor guides, spiritual content, etc. However, there are notable gaps: no tool to fetch full news articles (only headlines), no way to manage show schedules, and no donation or station info tools. Also, listener profile management is split across multiple tools, which feels incomplete.