Winning numbers for one lottery — either its recent draw history, or a specific past date. Use the codes from list_lotteries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Optional draw date as YYYY-MM-DD. Omit for the most recent. | |
| lottery | Yes | The lottery code, e.g. "euromillions". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (winning numbers, date flexibility) but does not explain return format, error handling, or resolve the ambiguity between 'recent draw history' and the schema's 'most recent' singular result.
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?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with 'Winning numbers', and every word adds value. No redundancy or filler.
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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main modes but leaves gaps: unclear whether 'history' means multiple draws, no mention of response shape, and no handling of invalid dates or codes. Adequate but with notable ambiguities.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described. The description adds only the cross-reference to list_lotteries for the lottery code, which is helpful but minimal; it does not significantly augment parameter understanding.
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 tool's function: retrieving winning numbers for a lottery, either recent history or a specific past date. It also references list_lotteries for codes, distinguishing it from that sibling and providing specific scope.
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?
The description gives clear context for use: it handles one lottery with either recent or dated draws, and instructs the user to obtain codes from list_lotteries. It does not explicitly compare to latest_results or state exclusions, so it lacks a fully explicit when-not.
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.
latest_results and lottery_results both return winning numbers, which could cause minor confusion. However, latest_results explicitly covers all lotteries at once for the most recent draw, while lottery_results targets a single lottery with history or specific date, making the distinction clear from descriptions.
All tool names use snake_case consistently, but the patterns differ: list_lotteries follows a verb_noun format, while latest_results and lottery_results use adjective_noun. This is not chaotic, but the lack of a consistent verb prefix (e.g., get_) across all tools prevents a higher score.
Three tools is an appropriate scope for a lottery results server. Each tool serves a clear purpose: listing available lotteries, getting the latest combined results, and querying specific lottery history or dates, without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle of accessing lottery results: discovering lotteries, retrieving latest draws, and fetching historical results by date. A minor gap is lack of support for date-range queries or filtering, but the existing functionality handles the primary use cases well.