sportmonks_leagues

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds critical caveats: the return shape is from vendor docs and unverified, and it notes the auth requirement (SPORTMONKS_TOKEN). This discloses uncertainty and prerequisites that are not present in the annotations, providing meaningful behavioral context.

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: a one-line purpose, a structured return shape block, a caveat note, an example, and an auth line. It is front-loaded and each element carries useful information, though the 'Example: Leagues on your plan' line is somewhat redundant with the opening sentence.

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 no output schema, the description provides a detailed return shape including pagination fields, which is essential for an agent. It also includes a reliability caveat, auth note, and free-tier example. The field names are self-explanatory, so missing field-level explanations are acceptable, making this quite complete for a list tool.

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 describes all three parameters (page, include, per_page) with examples and constraints (e.g., 'max 50'). The description does not add extra parameter-specific meaning, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline 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 clearly identifies the resource being returned ('Leagues your plan can see') and provides concrete examples (Danish Superliga, Scottish Premiership on free tier). It distinguishes from sibling sportmonks tools by focusing specifically on league-level data, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'gets' or 'lists'.

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 useful context about plan-based visibility and a free-tier example, which implies when an agent might expect limited results. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other sportmonks endpoints, nor does it name any alternatives or exclusions.

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