get_standings

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description explains the input (slug) but does not describe the output format or any behavioral traits like caching, pagination, or time-sensitivity. Since no annotations are provided, some behavioral context is missing, but the description does not contradict any 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that packs in the verb, resource, and example usage. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff.

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?

The tool has 2 simple parameters with full schema descriptions, no output schema, and no sibling conflicts. The description covers the core purpose and input format. While it could mention the return type or typical usage alongside scheduling, it is adequate for a straightforward standings query.

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 input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for both parameters (sport enum, slug string), and the coverage is 100%. The description adds context that slug is a competition slug, but the schema already says that. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get'), resource ('current standings table'), and context ('for a league or competition by slug'). It also provides examples of valid slugs, which helps the agent understand the input format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bracket or get_matches.

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 implies that the tool should be used when standings are needed, and gives examples of league slugs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as get_tracker for live updates. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.