query_stat_leadersTop entities on one verified metric for one season, pre-sorted, each with the source's own rank and the population it was ranked against. Call list_metrics for the metric keys this accepts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| order | No | ||
| metric | Yes | ||
| season | No | ||
| position | No | ||
| entity_kind | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that results are 'pre-sorted' and include 'the source's own rank and the population it was ranked against,' which adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context about output shape.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a useful cross-reference to list_metrics. Every sentence earns its place with 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?
The tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, so the description should provide more context about return values and parameter behavior. It does mention rank and population, which is helpful, but leaves gaps about defaults, ordering behavior, and entity_kind usage. Adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It only implies metric and season ('one verified metric for one season') but does not explain limit, order, position, or entity_kind. The pointer to list_metrics helps for metric, but the other parameters remain undocumented.
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 identifies the tool's function: retrieving top entities for a single verified metric and season, with sorting and rank information. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'verified metric' and 'source's own rank,' making it unique from list_metrics or compare_entities.
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 a clear use case (top entities for a verified metric/season) and explicitly directs users to list_metrics for metric keys, which is helpful for selecting the right input. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.
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.