games_get_leaders_by_athleteRetrieve statistical leaderboards for individual athletes in a sport and league, filtered by category, sorted, and limited to top performers.
Fetch statistical leaderboards across a league for individual athletes (e.g. passing yards, rushing, points, strikeouts).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| sport | Yes | ||
| league | Yes | ||
| category | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the leaderboards span a league and gives example stat categories; it says nothing about pagination, result size, or the effect of the limit/sort parameters. Adequate but thin against a lowered bar.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the resource stated immediately and a parenthetical of concrete examples. No filler, no redundancy.
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?
No output schema exists, but the return format (ranked leaderboard rows) is inferable from the purpose. The description is not complete enough for a five-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, since category/sort/limit behavior is left entirely unexplained.
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 carries the full burden for five parameters, yet it only loosely alludes to stat categories (passing yards, rushing, points, strikeouts) without tying them to the 'category' parameter. Nothing explains 'sort' semantics or the meaning of the default limit of 10.
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 states a clear verb ('Fetch') and resource ('statistical leaderboards across a league for individual athletes'), and the 'individual athletes' scope implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling games_get_leaders_by_team. However, it never names that sibling, so an agent must infer the split from the tool name alone.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. Given the near-identical sibling games_get_leaders_by_team, the omission of an explicit 'use X instead when you want team-level leaders' is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.