List the current public Daily Fantasy glossary terms and definitions from DraftKings' How to Play page. Use it to look up terms such as PMR, OPRK, GPP, and FPPG; it does not return player pools, contest entries, or account data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: data is 'current' and 'public', it is scraped from the How to Play page, and it deliberately excludes account/contest data. No pagination or refresh-frequency detail, but the output schema covers the return shape.
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, both earning their place: the first establishes what and where from, the second establishes use cases and boundaries. Front-loaded and free of 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?
With zero params, an existing output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the data is, its source and freshness, and what it will not contain.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading claims about filtering or arguments that do not exist.
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 (List) plus the exact resource (Daily Fantasy glossary terms and definitions) and the authoritative source (DraftKings' How to Play page). An agent knows immediately this is a reference-data lookup, not a stats or odds endpoint.
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 second sentence gives concrete when-to-use examples (PMR, OPRK, GPP, FPPG) and explicit exclusions (no player pools, contest entries, or account data), which cleanly separates it from dfs_sports/dfs_guide tools. It stops short of naming a specific sibling alternative like draftkings_dfs_guide, so it does not reach a 5.
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.
