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 |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the endpoint is public and requires no auth, and enumerates the returned data (lineup, timing proof, on-chain status, credential). However, it does not explicitly state that verification is read-only, nor does it describe behavior for invalid or missing hashes. It adds some context but leaves gaps in side-effect disclosure.
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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a return summary, and a clear Args section. It is front-loaded with the purpose and does not waste words, though it could be slightly more compact.
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 present and one parameter fully described, the description is largely complete for a simple verification tool. It could mention error handling or edge cases, but these are likely covered by the output schema. It provides sufficient information for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
The description provides the parameter format ('64-char SHA-256') and its role ('commitment hash'), which is essential because the schema has 0% description coverage. This fully compensates for the missing schema documentation, giving an agent clear guidance on what to pass.
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 clearly states the action ('Verify') and the specific resource ('a fantasy lineup commitment'), distinguishing it from other verify tools in the sibling list. It also lists what it returns (lineup, timing proof, on-chain status, credential), which further clarifies its purpose. The name alone is informative, but the description adds concrete scope.
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?
Usage is implied: use it to verify a fantasy lineup commitment. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like mt_fantasy_commit or other verify endpoints, nor does it state when not to use it. There are no alternatives or exclusions mentioned, so an agent must infer the context from the resource name.
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.