verify_claimChecks structured claims against Muffed's verified panel. Each claim comes back confirmed, wrong (with the actual value), or unverifiable (with the metric's real season coverage). Takes structured fields only, not sentences.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claims | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses the exact return outcomes (confirmed, wrong with actual value, unverifiable with season coverage), providing valuable behavioral detail. No contradictions with 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 concise sentences: the first states purpose and outcomes, the second sets a usage constraint. Every word 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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the return possibilities and the input restriction. It also covers the verification semantics that are essential, and schema details like required fields and limits remain in the schema.
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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it only states 'structured fields only' without explaining the fields (metric, entity, value, season, entity_kind). The schema names and types exist, but the description adds minimal semantic clarity beyond that.
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 checks structured claims against Muffed's verified panel, with a specific verb ('checks') and resource. It also differentiates from siblings by focusing on verification with three outcome types (confirmed, wrong, unverifiable), not comparison or lookup.
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 explicitly says 'Takes structured fields only, not sentences,' which tells the agent when to use it (for structured claims) and when not to (for natural language). It does not name alternative tools but implies the scope.
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.