compare_entitiesTwo players or two teams shown side by side, on the metrics that matter for their position by default — name metrics explicitly, or pass all:true, for the full set. Each side carries its source rank. States both figures and stops: it names no winner, no margin and no recommendation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | ||
| b | Yes | ||
| all | No | ||
| season | No | ||
| metrics | No | ||
| entity_kind | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it states the tool presents both figures and explicitly avoids declaring a winner, margin, or recommendation, and notes each side carries its source rank. This gives the agent useful behavioral expectations.
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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence contributes meaningful details without redundancy, though it could be even more structured with parameter clarifications.
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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of behavior and return style (states both figures, no verdict). It mentions source rank but omits details on season and exact input formats, making it slightly incomplete for full autonomous use.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'metrics' and 'all' parameters and implies entity_kind, but it does not explain 'a', 'b', or 'season'. The partial coverage is helpful but leaves key parameters undocumented for the agent.
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 compares two players or teams side by side on relevant metrics, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_entity_metrics (single entity) and query_stat_leaders (leaders) by focusing on pairwise comparison.
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 provides clear context: it handles two players or two teams, and explains default vs. explicit metric selection. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternative tools or include exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: entity metrics, metric definitions, leaderboards, comparisons, backfield info, editorial insights, claim verification, and five separate Sleeper league tools each with a clear purpose. No two tools could be easily confused.
All tool names use snake_case and follow a predictable verb-noun pattern (get_, list_, query_, compare_, verify_) with the sleeper_* prefix consistently applied to fantasy-league tools. The naming convention is uniform throughout.
13 tools is within the ideal 3-15 range and matches the server's dual purpose of verified NFL stats and fantasy context. Every tool serves a clear function without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface comprehensively covers the stated domain: metric retrieval, definitions, listings, leaders, comparisons, backfield context, insights, claim verification, and fantasy league operations. No obvious dead ends or missing core operations.