draftkings_leagues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the directory is current, public, and includes sports and leagues. It does not describe response pagination, the exact shape of the directory, or any operational quirks; for a zero-parameter listing, this is adequate but not rich.

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 substantive content is concise and front-loaded: it states what is returned and how the result is reused. The opening noun phrase 'DraftKings Sportsbook sports and leagues' is redundant with the tool name and adds no value, which slightly penalizes an otherwise efficienty structured definition.

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?

Given the low complexity of a zero-parameter public folder, the description covers the main use case: fetch the directory and feed league IDs into odds/futures calls. It lacks a description of the returned response structure (e.g., whether it's a flat list, how for each league is keyed), and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the schema already communicates everything about parameters. Baseline is 4 for no-parameter tools, and the description adds the useful relationship: league IDs are used as league_id by /draftkings/sportsbook/odds and /futures.

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 identifies the resource: DraftKings Sportsbook's current public sport and league directory, using 'Returns' as the verb. It distinguishes the resource from event/odds tools by stating its league IDs are consumed by odds and futures endpoints. It does not explicitly contrast against sibling 'draftkings_featured_leagues', which keeps it from a perfect clarity score.

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 a concrete usage hint: league IDs returned here are accepted as league_id by the odds and futures endpoints, so an agent can infer when this directory call is the prerequisite. But it never names alternatives like draftkings_featured_leagues or says when not to use this tool, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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