Skip to main content
Glama

Fantasy Football Draft Assistant

by com.predictionmarketspicks

Explain a Player Ranking

explain_player
Read-only

Explain WHY the 2026 draft board ranks a player where it does, factor by factor: projection, floor/ceiling band, boom/bust week shape, and the three separate ranks a board row carries — our model's own positional rank, the market's ADP, and the published blend between them — plus the edge between model and market. Also states what the projection does NOT model (injuries, camp news, schedule). Free, no key. Use for "why do you have there", "explain ranking", "what's driving 's projection", "why is a sleeper/bust". For a plain outlook or a verdict rather than the reasoning, use player_outlook.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
playerYesPlayer full name (e.g. "Bijan Robinson", "Jaxon Smith-Njigba").
scoringNoScoring format: standard, half_ppr (default), or ppr (full PPR). Overrides a platform preset. Works for Yahoo/ESPN/Sleeper defaults.
platformNoLeague platform — applies its default scoring, size, roster + best-ball settings (overridable by explicit scoring/teams). Underdog/DraftKings are best ball.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description further adds transparency by stating 'Free, no key' and explicitly listing what the projection does NOT model (injuries, camp news, schedule), giving agents insight into limitations 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately long but every sentence adds value: purpose, factor breakdown, limitations, and usage examples are all front-loaded. It could be slightly more concise but remains well-structured and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (explaining rankings with multiple components) and no output schema, the description does a good job setting expectations: it lists what is explained, what is not modeled, and contrasts with a sibling tool. Minor gap: does not specify the return format, but overall complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new semantic details for parameters beyond what the schema already provides (player name, scoring format, platform). It implicitly confirms usage but adds no additional meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool explains WHY a player is ranked where they are on the 2026 draft board, listing specific factors (projection, floor/ceiling, boom/bust, ranks, edge). It also distinguishes itself from sibling 'player_outlook' by clarifying that tool is for plain outlook/verdict, making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage contexts with example queries ('why do you have <player> there', 'explain <player> ranking') and explicitly directs users to 'player_outlook' for a plain outlook or verdict. This is model guidance on when to use and when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Fantasy Football Draft Assistant toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct jobs: rankings, comparisons, outlooks, and platform-specific ADP gaps are easy to separate. The main ambiguity is between best_available and who_do_i_draft, since their usage examples overlap heavily ('who should I take next' vs 'who should I take'), though the roster-input distinction helps.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use lowercase snake_case and are readable, but there is no consistent structural pattern: compare_players and explain_player are verb_noun, while draft_board, player_outlook, sleepers_and_busts, and adp_market_gaps are noun phrases, and who_do_i_draft is a full question. This is mixed but not chaotic.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is a well-scoped size for a fantasy football draft assistant. Each tool covers a distinct draft-related need without feeling padded or redundant enough to trim.

Completeness5/5

The server covers the core draft workflow comprehensively: full rankings, player outlooks, ranking explanations, head-to-head comparisons, best-available picks, roster-aware recommendations, sleepers/busts, and cross-platform ADP gaps. No major dead-end or obvious missing operation stands out for the stated purpose.

Resources