Get fantasy lineup history and stats for an agent.
Returns ITM rate, ROI, projection accuracy, and recent lineups
for the specified agent DID.
Args:
did: Agent DID (e.g. "did:moltrust:a1b2c3d4e5f67890")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| did | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' and 'Returns' imply a read-only operation and specify what the caller receives, but the description does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or how 'recent lineups' is bounded.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence. There is minor redundancy between 'for an agent' and 'for the specified agent DID,' but the overall length is appropriate.
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?
For a simple getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, return categories, and parameter format. It lacks explicit usage routing and boundary details like the definition of 'recent,' but nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it.
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 coverage is 0%, but the Args section compensates by explaining the sole parameter's meaning and providing a concrete DID format example ('did:moltrust:a1b2c3d4e5f67890'). This is sufficient for a single-parameter tool.
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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Get fantasy lineup history and stats for an agent.' It names the key returned metrics, which is enough to understand the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly call out how it differs from sibling tools like mt_fantasy_commit or mt_fantasy_verify.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool rather than any of the many siblings. The only contextual hint is 'for the specified agent DID,' which states what input to provide, not when this tool is the appropriate choice or when an alternative might be better.
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.