espn_standings

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses the return format with a JSON structure example, indicating the data shape for standings entries. It does not mention rate limits or permissions, but the read-only nature is implied by 'standings'.

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?

The description is concise (three sentences plus example and return structure), but the return structure could be formatted more clearly. However, it avoids unnecessary details.

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?

With 4 parameters, no enums, and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding of the tool's purpose and output. However, it lacks parameter details and does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only implicitly references the 'season' parameter via 'current or given season'. It does not explain the required parameters 'sport' and 'league', nor the 'seasontype' parameter.

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 clearly states it provides league standings/ladder with per-team stats and conference/division groupings. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like espn_scoreboard by specifying the return structure and giving an example for NBA.

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 mentions current or given season and provides an example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as mlb_standings or pl_standings. No when-not-to guidance is provided.

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