sleeper_matchup_previewBoth sides of a league matchup, with the verified figures Muffed holds for the players involved and each team's record. Muffed does not project outcomes, name a winner, or recommend a lineup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team | Yes | ||
| week | No | ||
| league_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description adds context that this provides verified figures and doesn't make projections, which is useful for setting expectations beyond the annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no wasted words. The description is concise and reads well.
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?
It gives purpose and boundaries, but without an output schema or parameter explanations, it's incomplete for an agent to know exactly what to expect in return or how to construct inputs properly.
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 has no descriptions (0% coverage) and the description does not explain the meaning or format of league_id, team, or week. It only implies league context, leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics.
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 provides both sides of a league matchup with verified figures and team records, and explicitly distinguishes itself from projection tools by stating what it does not do. This differentiates it from sibling story/insight tools.
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?
It implies when to use (when you need verified matchup context) and explicitly states it does not project outcomes or recommend lineups, which serves as a when-not. However, it doesn't name alternative tools for projections.
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.