Skip to main content
Glama

DraftCall

by io.draftcall

Compare two NFL players

compare_players
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare any two NFL players head to head for fantasy football: points per game in the requested scoring format, volume stats, bye weeks, and which one produced more. Use this for start/sit, draft, and trade questions about two specific players.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
player_aYesFirst player name, e.g. "Bijan Robinson".
player_bYesSecond player name, e.g. "Jahmyr Gibbs".
scoring_formatNoScoring format. ppr awards 1 point per reception, half_ppr 0.5, standard 0. Defaults to half_ppr, the most common league setting.half_ppr

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe draftcall.io page these figures came from. This is the citation to use.
tier_aNoThe tier this player sits in at his position, or null when he is outside the ranked pool.
tier_bNoThe tier this player sits in at his position, or null when he is outside the ranked pool.
player_aYes
player_bYes
same_tierYesTrue only when both play the same position and land in the same tier.
higher_ppgYesName of the higher scorer, or null when the two are level.
ppg_marginYes
shared_byeYes
refreshed_atYesWhen this dataset was last refreshed, as an ISO 8601 timestamp.
stats_seasonYesThe completed NFL season every figure in this result describes.
scoring_formatYes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful behavioral detail by enumerating what the comparison reveals: points per game, volume stats, bye weeks, and the higher producer. No contradiction with annotations exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no filler: the first states what the tool does and what it returns, the second states when to use it. The core behavior is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

For a three-parameter read-only tool with a fully described schema and an output schema present, this description covers all essential guidance: what is compared, which formats are supported, and the decision scenarios it serves. Nothing material is missing for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 schema already documents player_a, player_b, and scoring_format with examples and defaults. The description's mention of 'requested scoring format' adds only light reinforcement and no meaningful new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('compare') with a clear resource ('any two NFL players head to head') and lists concrete outputs: points per game, volume stats, bye weeks, and the player who produced more. It clearly distinguishes itself from single-player tools like get_player and from rankings-based siblings like get_rankings.

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 says to use it for 'start/sit, draft, and trade questions about two specific players,' giving clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the qualifying phrase 'about two specific players' helps the agent avoid misuse.

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

All DraftCall 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct query type: single-player lookup, two-player comparison, rankings, scarcity, ADP gaps, schedule, bye conflicts, weekly matchup, search, and claim verification. Even related tools like compare_players and get_player have clearly separated purposes that an agent can reliably distinguish.

Naming Consistency4/5

Seven tools follow the get_ noun pattern, while search_players, compare_players, and verify_claim use verb_noun without get. The convention is still highly readable and predictable, with only minor deviations.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is well-scoped for a fantasy football data server. Each tool covers a meaningful slice of draft, in-season, and fact-checking workflows without unnecessary overlap or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The set covers player lookup, head-to-head comparison, rankings, scarcity, schedule, bye conflicts, weekly matchups, and stat verification. A direct standalone ADP lookup and projections are missing, but agents can work around those gaps using the provided tools.

Resources