teams_get_team_statisticsFetch a team's season statistics across offensive, defensive, and special teams categories, comparing it with opponents by sport, league, and team ID.
Fetch team and opponent season statistics across offensive, defensive, and special teams categories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sport | Yes | ||
| league | Yes | ||
| team_id | Yes |
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 and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds that results include opponent stats and span three unit categories, which is useful context, but says nothing about season scope, return shape, or whether data is paginated.
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 no filler; the verb and resource come first and the category breakdown follows. Efficient, though the one sentence is doing very little work overall.
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 and no annotations describing return values, the description does at least convey the data scope (team + opponent, three unit categories). However, for a tool requiring three undocumented identifiers and no season parameter, it leaves open what 'season' means and what inputs are valid.
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% for all three required parameters, so the description must carry the load — and it does not. It never explains the expected format of sport, league, or team_id, nor whether league values are constrained, leaving the agent to guess valid inputs.
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?
States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('team and opponent season statistics') and scopes the data to offensive, defensive, and special teams categories. This distinguishes it reasonably well from siblings like teams_get_team or teams_get_player_stats, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not reference any sibling tool. An agent must infer from the word 'statistics' that this is the season-aggregate tool rather than a roster, schedule, or game-summary tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.