Fetch the public DraftKings Pick6 Rules and Scoring sections and linked sport/format rule pages, with a flag for child slugs that have a supported detail tool. Use it to learn the published rules; it does not return picks, projections, entries, or geolocation tokens.
| 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 and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful structure: results include a flag marking child slugs that have a supported detail tool, which tells the agent how to chain into the detail endpoint. It says nothing about auth, rate limits, or result size, keeping it below 5.
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 tightly written sentences: what is fetched first, usage and exclusions second. No filler, and the scoping constraint is front-loaded.
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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, and it supplements that with an important structural note (child-slug flag) and a negative scope list. Given zero params and existing annotations, this is close to complete; only the exact handoff to the detail tool is left implicit.
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 no parameters, so there is no per-parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly says nothing about inputs.
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?
Specific verb (Fetch) plus a precisely scoped resource: the public Pick6 Rules and Scoring sections and their linked sport/format rule pages. It also hints at the boundary with the sibling detail tool via the child-slug flag, so an agent can separate it from draftkings_pick6_rule_page and draftkings_predictions_rules.
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?
'Use it to learn the published rules' gives a clear positive trigger, and the explicit non-returns list (no picks, projections, entries, geolocation tokens) steers the agent away from using it for those needs. It stops short of naming the sibling tools that should be used instead, so it is a 4 rather than 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.
