SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

NFL official passing leaders for a regular season

dev_nfl_stats

Read-only

NFL official passing leaders for a regular season from nfl.com's stats page, sorted by passing yards: player, yards, yards per attempt, attempts, completions, completion %, touchdowns, interceptions, passer rating, sacks. Passing only; other categories are not returned. Related tools on this server, for a different need: dev_mlb_stats when you need MLB player season stats and bio from the official MLB Stats; dev_nba_stats when you need NBA player season statistics, sorted leaderboard: per. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "dev_nfl_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many passers, 1 to 25 (default 10)
`season`	No	Season year, 2020 to 2026 (default 2026)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the upstream source (nfl.com stats page), the fixed sort order, the exact field set, and a detailed pricing model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, failed calls not charged). Only return format/pagination behavior is left unstated, which the output schema covers.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and field list are front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing 'Related tools' clause lists non-NFL alternatives that do little to aid selection, and the pricing sentence is long and multi-clause. Every element is informative, yet the marketing-adjacent tail dilutes focus.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only, two-parameter, output-schema-backed lookup, the definition covers source, ordering, returned fields, and exclusions. Nothing essential is missing; only upstream freshness or pagination-style behavior could add marginal value.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters (limit 1-25 default 10, season 2020-2026 default 2026) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource and verb-equivalent scope: official NFL passing leaders for a regular season from nfl.com's stats page, sorted by passing yards, and enumerates the exact returned fields. It also explicitly excludes other stat categories, so an agent can distinguish it from a general NFL scoreboard tool at a glance.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear context ('Passing only; other categories are not returned') and names two alternative tools with the conditions that select them. The gap is that the named alternatives are for different sports (MLB, NBA) rather than the more relevant NFL siblings like dev_espn_nfl_scoreboard or dev_pro_football_reference, so intra-NFL routing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?