Live Contests
Return latest V12 contest context without backend identifiers.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| sport | No | MLB | |
| compact | No | ||
| platform | No | fd |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limit / defaultPrevious value: -50New value: +250Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that backend identifiers are excluded and lists response codes 200 and 422, but it does not describe the success response structure, side effects, or how parameters influence behavior. The example response shown is actually a 422 validation error, which is misleading rather than transparent.
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 core sentence is concise, but the description is padded with a response section that focuses on an error example rather than a successful response. The 'Live Contests' heading is redundant with the tool name. The structure does not prioritize the most useful information.
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 four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, a success payload example, and usage context; an agent would struggle to know what 'contest context' means, what each parameter does, or how to interpret the return value.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (limit, sport, compact, platform). It provides no meaning, examples, or constraints beyond the raw schema defaults, leaving an agent without the information needed to set these parameters appropriately.
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 states a specific action and resource: 'Return latest V12 contest context without backend identifiers.' This clearly identifies what the tool does. It is somewhat differentiated from the sibling 'list_contests' by the emphasis on 'latest V12' and 'without backend identifiers,' though it does not explicitly name the contrast.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_contests or list_slates. The phrase 'live' and 'latest' implies current contests, but there are no explicit context cues, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.
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.