Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official

fanduel_research_article

Fetch a FanDuel Research article by slug and return its details plus full body as structured blocks and plain text, including Sportsbook market IDs and omitted-block counts.

Instructions

FanDuel Research article. Returns one FanDuel Research article in full: its details plus the body rendered as blocks (paragraphs, headings, list items, tables, and embedded Sportsbook markets with their event, market and selection ids) and as plain text. Content the renderer cannot show, such as embedded HTML, is counted in omitted_blocks instead of being dropped silently. An unknown slug returns 404.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
articleYesArticle slug from the `articles` route (`articles[].slug`)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.16

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses the body structure via `blocks` and `text`, names embedded Sportsbook markets, explains `omitted_blocks` for unrenderable content, and documents the 404 case. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, auth needs, or rate limits, but 'Returns' strongly implies a safe read.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, front-loaded, and scannable. The opening 'FanDuel Research article.' lightly restates the name, but the remaining sentences are dense and useful with little filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter article-detail tool with no output schema, the description explains the return shape, unrenderable-content handling, and error behavior well enough for an agent to call and interpret it. No material contextual gap remains for selecting or invoking the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already has 100% coverage for the single `article` parameter, including that it comes from `articles[].slug`. The description only adds that an unknown slug returns 404, which is useful error context but not additional slug syntax or format guidance beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns one FanDuel Research article in full. It distinguishes this detail fetch from list-style siblings by emphasizing a single article, a slug, and the full block/text rendering.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly implies a detail fetch using a known article slug and notes that an unknown slug returns 404. It does not explicitly name fanduel_research_articles as the source or give when-not conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools