Verify a fantasy lineup commitment. Public endpoint, no auth required.
Returns the full lineup, timing proof (minutes before contest),
on-chain verification status, and the FantasyLineupCredential.
Args:
commitment_hash: The 64-char SHA-256 commitment hash
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| commitment_hash | Yes | The 64-char SHA-256 commitment hash |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / commitment_hash / descriptionAdded value: +"The 64-char SHA-256 commitment hash"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a verification tool, and the description adds value beyond the annotation by disclosing that no auth is needed and what the response contains (lineup, timing proof, on-chain status, credential). It does not discuss failure modes, e.g. what happens for an unknown or unconfirmed hash.
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, then auth, then return payload; the only waste is the Args block, which duplicates the input schema for a single parameter. Overall tight and scannable.
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?
With an output schema, readOnlyHint, and full schema coverage, the remaining burden is small: auth requirement, payload summary, and param format are all covered. Only error/edge-case behavior is unaddressed.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's Args line repeats the schema text verbatim ('The 64-char SHA-256 commitment hash') and adds no format, encoding, or sourcing guidance beyond what the schema already states.
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 ('Verify a fantasy lineup commitment'), which is clearly separable from the write-side sibling mt_fantasy_commit and from mt_fantasy_history. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from the verb rather than stated.
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?
'Public endpoint, no auth required' gives useful call context, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus mt_fantasy_commit or mt_fantasy_history. The usage (verify a commitment that was previously committed) is only implied.
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.