sportmonks_standings

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

The description discloses several important behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations: the response shape is unverified and approximate, team names require the include=participant parameter, and authentication needs a user-provided SPORTMONKS_TOKEN. This is valuable context that helps the agent set expectations and avoid relying on unverified fields.

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 with a one-line summary, return shape, caveat, example, and auth note. It is somewhat long but each part serves a purpose; the unverified-shape warning is particularly important. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description provides a detailed return shape, flags its unverified nature, includes a practical example, and states auth requirements. This covers all essential aspects for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results, making it comprehensively complete for a read-only standings endpoint.

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?

Although the schema already describes both parameters (100% coverage), the description adds meaningful usage context: a concrete example showing seasonId and include values, and a warning about the consequence of omitting include=participant. This goes beyond the schema's simple field descriptions.

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 tool as returning a league table for a season, including a detailed return shape and an example. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling standings tools (e.g., pl_standings, apisports_football_standings), so it lacks the sibling distinction needed for a 5.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative standings tools. It does give parameter-level advice (e.g., without include=participant you only get team IDs), but that does not address tool selection. There is no mention of exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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