Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official

fanduel_sportsbook_team_depth_chart

Retrieve an NFL team's FanDuel Sportsbook depth chart and statistical leaders with rank, position, college, age, and draft details for roster analysis.

Instructions

FanDuel Sportsbook team depth chart. Returns a team's depth chart (rank, position, college, age and draft details) and its statistical leaders. Available for the NFL only; other leagues return 400 listing their pages.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
teamYesTeam slug from the `teams` route (`groups[].teams[].slug`), such as `arizona-cardinals`
leagueYesLeague: `nfl`, `nba`, `mlb`, `college-football`, `college-basketball`

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.16

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does useful work: it discloses the failure mode (HTTP 400 with page listing) for unsupported leagues and the shape of returned data. It does not mention auth, caching, or whether the statistical leaders section can be missing, but reads are implied by 'Returns'.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Only three short sentences, but the opening repeats the tool name ('FanDuel Sportsbook team depth chart') verbatim, which is wasted space; the substantive content is the field enumeration and the NFL-only constraint in sentences two and three.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must describe the return payload — and it does, listing rank, position, college, age, draft details plus statistical leaders. The main remaining gap is that a caller cannot tell what to do when a non-NFL league is requested beyond 'you get a 400'.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the team slug source and league enum, so the description adds no parameter detail beyond what is structured. Baseline 3 applies; nothing is lost but nothing is added.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns a team's depth chart') and enumerates the returned fields plus statistical leaders. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like fanduel_sportsbook_team_roster or team_stats, so an agent must infer the distinction from the word 'depth chart'.

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?

Gives a clear exclusion condition: 'Available for the NFL only; other leagues return 400 listing their pages', which tells the agent not to call it for nba/mlb/college leagues. It stops short of naming alternatives (team_roster, team_stats) for the excluded cases or for users who want stats rather than a depth chart.

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