livefpl_league_live_score

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 that data is live and provisional (before bonus/ranks finalised), and details the return structure. It does not mention potential failure modes (e.g., private leagues, rate limits) or error handling, but the main behavioral traits are transparent.

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: the purpose leads, followed by a behavior paragraph, then Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value—the URL root, live/provisional nature, and detailed return fields. No redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description is complete for an agent to call the tool correctly. It specifies the source, the provisional nature of scores, and a full enumeration of the returned fields (rank, rank_change, team_name, etc.). The presence of an output schema is corroborated by the detailed Returns section, so no critical information is missing.

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 fully compensates. It explains league_id as 'the number in the league URL, e.g. 230412' and limit as 'Maximum number of managers to return, ordered by current rank (default 25).' This adds concrete meaning beyond the bare schema titles and types.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('LIVE gameweek standings for an FPL classic league'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools about price risers/fallers, transfers, and predictions. It also names the external source URL, leaving no ambiguity about the function.

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 clearly defines what the tool does and its context (live league standings), but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over others or when not to use it. However, the sibling tool names are sufficiently distinct that an agent can infer the appropriate usage without explicit routing guidance.

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