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 | Agent DID (e.g. "did:moltrust:a1b2c3d4e5f67890") |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / did / descriptionAdded value: +"Agent DID (e.g. \"did:moltrust:a1b2c3d4e5f67890\")"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description frames this as a retrieval ('Get ... history and stats') while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. That is a direct contradiction of the safety profile an agent relies on; no side effects, permissions, or destructive behavior are explained.
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?
Front-loaded with purpose and return contents in two short sentences. The trailing Args block restates the schema but is small and not disruptive.
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?
Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a tool annotated destructive, the description gives zero context about what could be destroyed or what authorization is needed. The contradiction leaves the agent materially misinformed.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'did' parameter is fully documented with an example. The description merely repeats the same DID example from the schema, adding no extra semantics.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: fetching fantasy lineup history and stats for an agent DID, including the metrics returned (ITM rate, ROI, projection accuracy). It is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like mt_fantasy_commit and mt_fantasy_verify, though it never names them.
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 on when to use this versus mt_fantasy_verify, mt_fantasy_commit, or other stats tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the word 'history'.
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.