sportsdataio_nba_dfs_slates

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses that the return shape is from vendor docs and unverified, and instructs to inspect the actual payload. It also specifies authentication requirements via the SPORTSDATAIO_*_KEY environment variables, adding valuable context about prerequisites.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the description includes redundant caveats about the unverified vendor shape ('SHAPE FROM VENDOR DOCS' and the subsequent NOTE). At ~130 words, it's verbose for a single-parameter tool, though each substantive section (Returns, Example, Auth) serves a purpose.

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, an example call, and auth instructions, covering most operational needs. It lacks usage guidance and error handling, but for a simple read-only tool with one parameter, it's reasonably complete.

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 schema already covers the single 'date' parameter with format and requirement. The description reinforces it with a concrete example ('2024-01-15') and mentions 'for a date,' adding mild value beyond the schema. However, since coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3 and the example only slightly elevates it.

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 'NBA DFS slates and salaries for a date,' which clearly specifies the resource and scope. The Returns section confirms it produces a list of slates and player salaries, distinguishing it from the NFL sibling tool by NBA in the name. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list,' so it's not maximally explicit.

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 for retrieving NBA DFS slates for a given date but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. There is no mention of the sibling sportsdataio_nfl_dfs_slates or any exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the purpose line. This is an implied usage rather than clear guidance.

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