List all sports covered by KashRock's esports data. Use this to identify available leagues for DFS props, player props, live scores, and odds across 8 titles.
Sports KashRock covers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, is static, or how it behaves. The phrase 'covers' is not a behavioral disclosure.
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 under-specified rather than concise. A three-word fragment does not stand as a proper tool description; it sacrifices clarity for brevity and does not form a functional sentence.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not mention return format, data type, sorting, or any caveats. For a simple list tool, an agent still lacks sufficient information about what will actually be returned.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter surface. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed.
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 'Sports KashRock covers' is a noun phrase, not a clear verb+resource statement. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'return', so an agent must infer the purpose from the tool name. It also does not differentiate from sibling list tools such as list_books or list_markets.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of related list tools like list_capabilities, list_books, or list_markets, and no context for selection is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.