Retrieve current featured Yahoo Sports odds game cards and their source game IDs, so you can query detailed odds for each featured game.
Yahoo Sports featured odds games. Returns the current featured game cards from Yahoo's public Graphite featuredGameIds operation, including each source game ID for use with yahoo-sports-odds-game.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.18Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context; it discloses provenance (Yahoo's public Graphite featuredGameIds operation) and what is returned (featured game cards with source game IDs). It does not address freshness, caching, whether the list can be empty, or response size – gaps that matter for a no-argument listing endpoint.
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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed immediately by the practical chaining detail. 'Graphite featuredGameIds operation' is internal jargon but is compressed into the same clause and doesn't pad the text.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers what it fetches, where it comes from, and one concrete follow-up step. The main remaining gap is the shape/fields of a 'featured game card', which the agent can only discover by calling.
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 is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter guidance.
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 names a specific resource (Yahoo Sports featured odds game cards) and a concrete verb (Returns current featured games). Referencing the 'featuredGameIds' operation and the source game ID makes it distinguishable from yahoo_sports_odds_games or yahoo_sports_odds_trending, though the distinction is implicit rather than spelled out.
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?
It says the returned game IDs are 'for use with yahoo-sports-odds-game', which supplies a downstream chaining hint. However it never states when an agent should call this instead of yahoo_sports_odds_games or yahoo_sports_odds_trending, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.