fanduel_sb_call

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication (static _ak web key and headers) and return type (JSON object), but does not specify read-only nature, rate limits, error handling, or idempotency. This is minimal given no safety profile from annotations.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then handles auth, resource list, and return type efficiently. Every sentence adds value with minimal redundancy.

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 generic REST call tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description explains where to find operations and highlights key auth details. However, it lacks request construction details, error scenarios, or response structure, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists example variable query params (eventId, customPageId, etc.) but does not explain the 'operation' parameter's format or the 'path_params' and 'query_params' objects. The examples provide partial guidance but are insufficient for all parameters.

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 the tool 'fetch[es] a FanDuel Sportsbook REST resource by operation name', specifying the verb, resource type, and context (US, NJ). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on generic REST calls vs. specific endpoints, though it could be more explicit about its generic nature.

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 advises that the caller only needs to supply variable query params because static credentials are handled internally, and references a URI to list available operations. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use comparisons with sibling generic call tools like 'afl_cfs_call'.

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