Specify a horse name to retrieve its past race results, including start history, finish positions, and times.
特定の馬の過去レース戦績を取得
馬名を指定して、過去の出走履歴・着順・タイムなどを一覧できます。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year_from | No | ||
| horse_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description only minimally indicates this is a read operation fetching race history. It does not elaborate on potential error conditions, data freshness, or limits.
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 short and to the point, with two sentences that convey the core purpose efficiently.
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?
Given the tool has 2 parameters and no output schema, the description does not adequately explain the optional parameter or the output format, leaving an agent uncertain about correct usage.
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 description only mentions specifying the horse name, but fails to explain the optional 'year_from' parameter or any details about how parameters affect results. With 0% schema coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 the tool retrieves past race results for a specific horse by name, listing history, finishing order, and time. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'nar_horse_history'.
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, nor any prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.