Retrieve public DraftKings race-card metadata, including track, race number, scheduled post time, and status, while excluding favorite-track and wager data.
DraftKings Racing schedule. Returns public race-card metadata from the DraftKings Racing homepage, including track, race number, scheduled post time, and status. Favorite-track and wager data are excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.16Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully clarifies that the data is public and that favorite-track and wager data are excluded, which sets expectations. However, it does not state whether the call is read-only or idempotent, nor does it mention rate limits, error behavior, or freshness (e.g., live vs. cached).
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 three sentences and front-loads the key scope ('DraftKings Racing schedule') and the included fields. The opening sentence is slightly redundant with the tool name, but overall it is efficient and wastes little space.
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?
For a simple no-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers what is returned and what is excluded. It does not clarify time scope (e.g., today only vs. all upcoming races) or whether the result is a complete list, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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 are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline rule, a 0-parameter tool receives a 4 here. The description correctly does not invent parameter details.
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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('public race-card metadata from the DraftKings Racing homepage'), and enumerates the fields included (track, race number, post time, status). It does not, however, differentiate this tool from siblings like draftkings_racing_race_info or draftkings_racing_tracks, which an agent would need to choose correctly.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely describes output, leaving the agent to infer that it is for retrieving the current race schedule. No when-not or alternative tool is mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.