footballdataorg_standings

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses critical behavior: 'NEEDS A KEY (403 without)' and 'Auth: needs your own key in FOOTBALL_DATA_ORG_KEY.' It also warns that the return shape is from vendor docs and unverified, and explains how to interpret the standings list (pick type == 'TOTAL'). This adds significant context for safe and correct invocation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return shape, notes, example, and auth. However, the key requirement is stated twice ('NEEDS A KEY' and 'Auth: needs your own key'), which is mildly redundant. Overall, it is concise and every other piece of information earns its place.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description compensates with a detailed return shape, a caveat about unverified shape, an example, and authentication instructions. It fully covers the needs for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, including how to handle the standings list structure.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (competition, season, matchday). The description adds only an example (competition: 'PL') and does not introduce new meaning beyond the schema. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'League table for a competition,' which clearly identifies the resource and its purpose. It is further clarified by an example ('Premier League table') and the detailed return shape showing standings. This distinguishes it from other footballdataorg tools and general standings tools by explicitly naming the resource type.

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 implies usage through an example ({"competition": "PL"}) and notes the auth requirement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pl_standings or other provider standings. There is no exclusion guidance or mention of specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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