Contest Registry
List contest strategy registry entries for agents and the dashboard.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json 422: Validation Error Content-Type: application/json
Example Response:
{
"detail": [
{
"loc": [],
"msg": "Message",
"type": "Error Type",
"ctx": {}
}
]
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sport | No | MLB | |
| platform | No | fd |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It includes an example error response but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, pagination, or response structure for successful calls.
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 has a header and response section but includes a long example error response that may be unnecessary. Could be more concise while covering missing details.
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?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% param coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how to filter, or any behavioral constraints.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters but completely omits any mention of sport or platform. Their defaults (MLB, fd) are present in schema but not explained.
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 specifies 'List contest strategy registry entries' providing a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'list_live_contests' but does not clarify exactly what 'strategy registry entries' are.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'list_live_contests'. Does not state prerequisites or recommended contexts.
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.