SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

TeamRankings team stat table for NBA or NFL, for one stat

dev_teamrankings

Read-only

TeamRankings team stat table for NBA or NFL, for one stat page (for example points-per-game): rank, team, the season value, last 3 games, last game, home and away averages, and the previous season, as TeamRankings publishes them. Related tools on this server, for a different need: dev_fanduel when you need FanDuel Sportsbook game lines for NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, WNBA; dev_sportsline when you need SportsLine odds board: for NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, college. 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_teamrankings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`stat`	No	Stat slug as in teamrankings.com/<sport>/stat/<slug>, e.g. points-per-game (default)
`limit`	No	How many teams, 1 to 40 (default 10)
`sport`	No	nba (default) or nfl

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation behavior: the price ($0.002 USDC per successful call), the x402 payment rails (Base, Solana, Arc), and that failed calls are not charged. It does not add much else beyond that, so a 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the core purpose and returned columns in the first sentence, then moves to sibling routing and pricing. Everything earns its place, though the pricing/related-tools block makes it longer than strictly necessary for an agent that already sees sibling names.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Three optional parameters with full schema coverage, an output schema present, and a description that covers scope, columns, alternatives and cost. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already carries slug format, range and default guidance, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'for one stat page (for example points-per-game)' adds only slight framing beyond what the schema already documents; baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific noun-resource ('TeamRankings team stat table for NBA or NFL, for one stat page') plus the exact columns returned (rank, team, season value, last 3 games, last game, home/away averages, previous season). That level of specificity lets an agent distinguish it from the many other sports tools in the sibling list without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent: use dev_fanduel for FanDuel game lines, dev_sportsline for SportsLine odds boards, and enumerates the leagues each covers. This is the when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance that most definitions omit.

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?