SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

WTA official singles or doubles rankings from the JSON API

dev_wta_tennis_rankings

Read-only

WTA official singles or doubles rankings from the JSON API behind wtatennis.com: rank, player name, country, ranking points, tournaments played and rank movement. Top N as published; no ATP data. 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_wta_tennis_rankings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No	singles (default) or doubles
`limit`	No	How many players, 1 to 100 (default 10)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No
`count`	No
`source`	No
`rankings`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description earns credit for going beyond them: the $0.002 USDC charge per successful call, the x402 payment rails (Base, Solana, Arc), and the fact that failed calls are free — all critical for an agent deciding whether to invoke. However, it says nothing about ranking freshness/cadence or whether results are a snapshot; the field list largely restates what the output schema already supplies.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences: identity and scope first, then the field list, then pricing. Nothing is padded and the most decision-relevant facts (source, WTA-only, pay-per-call) are front-loaded.

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 two-parameter read-only rankings lookup with a full output schema and readOnly annotations, the description covers source, scope, cost, and billing failure semantics. The only gap is update frequency of the rankings, which an agent might care about for time-sensitive questions.

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%, so both parameters (type, limit) are already documented with defaults and ranges. The phrase "Top N as published" adds a little meaning about limit behaving as a prefix of the published order rather than a filter, but the description adds no detail on type values or behavior at the 100 cap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Names a specific resource and its upstream source ("WTA official singles or doubles rankings from the JSON API behind wtatennis.com") and enumerates the returned fields. It also scopes out adjacent data with "no ATP data", though it does not name the tennis siblings (dev_tennisexplorer, dev_sofascore_live) it might be confused with.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

"Top N as published" and "no ATP data" imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for ATP rankings, live scores, or historical rankings. Usage has to be inferred from the scope statement.

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?