Retrieve combined scores from all major sports leagues (NBA, NFL, NHL) in a single call. Returns games from all three leagues with final scores, teams, game times, and standings summaries. Use for comprehensive sports news monitoring or multi-sport fantasy management.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, establishing the safety profile. The description adds meaningful detail about the return content (final scores, teams, game times, standings summaries), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function, and contains no filler or repetition. Every word adds value.
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 this is a simple read-only aggregation tool with no parameters or output schema, the description fully covers its purpose, output contents, and intended use cases. It is complete and self-contained.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to explain parameters; the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4.
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 what the tool does: retrieves combined scores from NBA, NFL, and NHL in a single call. It also differentiates from sibling tools (which are league-specific) by explicitly covering all three leagues.
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 provides a clear use case: comprehensive sports news monitoring or multi-sport fantasy management. It does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the context of a single aggregated call implies that for single-league needs, the specific sibling tools would be more appropriate.
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.
The tools are mostly distinct in purpose, with get_all_scores providing a combined summary and the league-specific tools offering more detailed statistics and player data. However, there is some overlap since get_all_scores also returns scores from each league, which could cause an agent to hesitate when choosing between the combined and specific tools.
All tool names follow a consistent get_<scope>_scores pattern, with get_all_scores being the only deviation from the league-specific naming but still clear and predictable. This makes it easy to understand the function of each tool at a glance.
The server has 4 tools, which is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool serves a clear purpose: one for each major league and a combined all-scores option. This is a compact, focused set with no unnecessary bloat.
The tools cover the core need for retrieving scores from NBA, NFL, and NHL, including schedules, standings, and player stats. A minor gap is the lack of date or team-specific queries, and the absence of MLB coverage, but for daily score monitoring the surface is reasonably complete.