teamsAll 30 NBA teams: ID, name, city, abbreviation, conference, division. Use as a directory to resolve a team name into the numeric team_id required by other balldontlie tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds that it returns all 30 teams and specific fields, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with 'All 30 NBA teams' immediately conveys the scope and content.
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 simple directory listing with no parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It mentions key fields and the tool's purpose, which is sufficient given the low complexity.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description mentions output fields (ID, name, city, abbreviation, conference, division), adding value by specifying what the tool returns.
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 clearly states the verb (list/retrieve), resource (all 30 NBA teams), and purpose as a directory to resolve team names to numeric IDs for other tools. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'team' (singular) and others.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use as a directory to resolve a team name into the numeric team_id required by other balldontlie tools,' providing clear context. Could be improved by explicitly mentioning when not to use or naming alternatives, but it is still very effective.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all performing similar data queries. Similarly, bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_fill_risk cover the same betting domain. Players/player, teams/team, and games/game also blur distinctions.
Naming styles are inconsistent: some use verb_noun (e.g., validate_claim, discover_tools), others are plain nouns (e.g., player, team, stats), and some are individual verbs (e.g., forget, recall). There's no predictable pattern.
With 39 tools, the set is large and spans multiple unrelated domains (NBA stats, betting, general data lookup, memory). Given the server name 'Balldontlie' suggests NBA focus, the number is excessive and many tools feel out of place.
For an NBA stats server, the tool surface is incomplete (missing play-by-play, advanced stats, season leaders, etc.). As a general data server, it relies on meta-tools like ask_pipeworx rather than dedicated tools, so coverage is indirect and not comprehensive.