Retrieve the public All Tracks directory for DraftKings Racing with track type, status, schedule count, and country metadata; favorite IDs, runner details, and wagering controls are excluded.
DraftKings Racing tracks. Returns the public All Tracks directory with track type, status, schedule count, and country metadata. Favorite IDs, runner details, and wagering controls 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 burden and does reasonably well: 'public' signals no auth/scoped visibility, and the exclusion sentence ('favorite IDs, runner details, and wagering controls are excluded') tells the agent what this call will NOT return, preventing misuse for odds/betting data. It doesn't mention pagination or result size, which keeps it from a 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what it returns followed by scope exclusions. No 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?
No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return shape, and it lists the key fields plus the notable omissions. Enough for an agent to call a zero-arg list tool correctly; only pagination/volume detail is missing.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema is empty and there is nothing further for the description to disambiguate.
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 concrete verb+resource ('Returns the public All Tracks directory') and enumerates the fields returned (track type, status, schedule count, country). It does not name which sibling (e.g. draftkings_racing_schedule, draftkings_racing_race_info, fanduel_racing_tracks) it should be preferred over, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
Usage is only implied: it is the directory listing, so an agent can infer it's the lookup step before schedule or race_info calls. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.