Retrieve rolling 4-week disc golf market movers including biggest disc risers, fallers, breakout discs entering the top 100, and brand momentum shifts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Mover filter: 'all' (default), 'risers', 'fallers', 'breakouts', 'brands' | all |
| limit | No | Maximum number of mover items to return per category (1..20, default 10) |
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 the rolling 4-week window and enumerates the mover categories, but doesn't mention response format, pagination, auth, or other behavioral traits. For a read-only retrieval tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action, time window, and all relevant categories without any fluff. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple with two well-documented parameters, and the description covers the conceptual scope. It doesn't specify the exact response structure (there is no output schema), but for a list-style movers endpoint this is likely sufficient. Minor gaps like default behavior are already covered in the schema.
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% because both type and limit have descriptions. The description's mention of disc types mirrors the enum values and adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description has a clear verb and resource: 'Retrieve rolling 4-week disc golf market movers' and lists specific categories. It is easy to understand what the tool does, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_weekly_rankings, so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
The phrase 'rolling 4-week' provides helpful context for when to use this tool, but no alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned. An agent must infer that this tool is for market movers rather than weekly rankings, disc comparisons, or searches.
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.