Fetch public daily clues and image metadata for a Sportskeeda player-guessing game. Provide a current slug from sportskeeda_guessing_games and a valid YYYY-MM-DD date; the puzzle answer is omitted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | ||
| slug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral facts: the data is public, the date must be current-format, and crucially the puzzle answer is omitted, which sets expectations about what the agent will and won't get back.
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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the parameter constraints following. No filler, though the second sentence packs format and provenance into one clause rather than separating them, which is still efficient.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described; the description instead covers the one thing that matters about the return, that the answer is omitted. Together with the parameter constraints, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.
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 description coverage is 0% and the schema only declares two bare strings, so the description carries the burden. It supplies the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and the provenance/currency constraint on the slug (from sportskeeda_guessing_games, must be current), which meaningfully compensates for the undocumented schema.
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?
States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (public daily clues and image metadata) scoped to a named game. It also names the companion tool sportskeeda_guessing_games as the slug source, which helps distinguish it from that sibling and from sportskeeda_guessing_game_entities, though the distinction is by provenance rather than explicit contrast.
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?
Gives clear conditions for invocation: a slug sourced from sportskeeda_guessing_games and a valid YYYY-MM-DD date. It does not state when not to use it or name an explicit alternative, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
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.
