Fetches Yahoo Sports trending odds game cards and their source game IDs for querying detailed odds with yahoo-sports-odds-game.
Yahoo Sports trending odds games. Returns the current trending game cards from Yahoo's public Graphite trendingGameIds 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add useful context: the upstream operation name (trendingGameIds) and the claim that the source is public, implying no auth. It says nothing about rate limits, caching/freshness of 'trending', or whether these IDs are Yahoo-internal versus provider IDs beyond the handoff to yahoo-sports-odds-game.
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, then the provenance and the downstream handoff. No filler and no restatement of the tool name.
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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what comes back (trending game cards plus source game IDs) and how to use it. A brief note on the freshness window of 'trending' or the card's key fields would close the remaining gap.
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 for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The one relevant semantic, that the output carries source game IDs consumable by yahoo-sports-odds-game, is stated.
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 specific verb+resource: returns the currently trending odds game cards, sourced from Yahoo's Graphite trendingGameIds operation. That distinguishes it from the sibling list tools (yahoo_sports_odds_games, yahoo_sports_odds_featured) well enough for selection, though it never explicitly contrasts trending vs featured.
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?
The description gives a real workflow cue - the returned source game IDs are meant to be passed into yahoo-sports-odds-game - which is genuine usage guidance. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over yahoo_sports_odds_featured or yahoo_sports_odds_games, so selection between the three odds entry points is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.