SiteCheck Web Intel

Official World Golf Ranking: current men's position, player

search_owgr_golf_rankings

Read-only

Official World Golf Ranking (OWGR public ranking API, no key): current men's position, player name, country, total points, average points and last week's position for the top players. Current ranking only; no tour or event history. Related tools on this server, for a different need: search_fifa_team_rankings when you need FIFA men's national team world ranking: position, team; search_world_rugby_rankings when you need World Rugby men's 15s world rankings: position, team. 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": "search_owgr_golf_rankings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many players from the top, 1 to 50 (default 10)

Output Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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 non-obvious behavior: no API key required, a $0.002 USDC charge per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, and that failed calls are not billed — cost and failure semantics an agent cannot infer from structured fields. It stops short of rate limits or result ordering details.

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?

The core purpose and returned fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by scope limits, alternatives, and pricing in a logical order. The sibling-tool enumeration is somewhat verbose but each clause carries routing value, so little is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, cost, and alternatives for a simple one-parameter read tool. The only minor gap is that it does not state how results are ordered or whether the ranking is paginated beyond the top-50 limit.

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 the single 'limit' parameter is already documented in the schema as 'How many players from the top, 1 to 50 (default 10)'. The description adds no syntax, default, or range information beyond that, so the baseline 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 verb and resource ('Official World Golf Ranking... current men's position, player name, country, total points, average points and last week's position') and explicitly scopes it to the top players. It also names the two sibling ranking tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any 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?

It states the boundary condition directly ('Current ranking only; no tour or event history') and routes to alternatives with explicit triggers: search_fifa_team_rankings for FIFA national teams and search_world_rugby_rankings for rugby 15s. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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

All SiteCheck Web Intel tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?