Skip to main content
Glama

Fantasy Football Draft Assistant

by com.predictionmarketspicks

Player Draft Outlook

player_outlook
Read-only

A single player's 2026 fantasy outlook (standard, half-PPR or full-PPR): projected points and per-game, floor/ceiling range, boom/bust odds, consensus ADP and draft round, our positional rank, and whether the model tags him a SLEEPER or a BUST vs the market, with a one-line thesis. Free, no key. Use for "is a sleeper", " fantasy outlook 2026", "should I draft ", " projection".

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it states the tool is free and requires no API key, and lists the exact data returned (projected points, floor/ceiling, boom/bust odds, ADP, rank, sleeper/bust tag, thesis). 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single paragraph but packs all necessary information concisely. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and lists the outputs. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it's efficient and clear.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite having no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values: projected points (total and per-game), floor/ceiling range, boom/bust odds, consensus ADP and draft round, positional rank, sleeper/bust tag, and a one-line thesis. It also mentions free access and no key. The description is complete for a single-player lookup tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to repeat parameter details. However, it adds value by explaining usage context: 'standard, half-PPR or full-PPR' aligns with the scoring enum, and it notes that scoring overrides platform presets and works for Yahoo/ESPN/Sleeper defaults. This extra context helps the agent understand parameter behavior.

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 clearly states the tool provides a single player's 2026 fantasy outlook with specific metrics: projected points, floor/ceiling, boom/bust odds, ADP, rank, sleeper/bust tag, and a thesis. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings like 'sleepers_and_busts' by emphasizing 'single player' and detailed projections.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly gives example queries ('is <player> a sleeper', '<player> fantasy outlook 2026', 'should I draft <player>', '<player> projection'), providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the examples cover the intended use cases well.

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