How often a target like this one has been chased down in men's T20: the rate for targets within 10 runs of yours, with the number of chases and a 95% interval, from 4,502 chases through 17 Sep 2026. Optional ground record. Per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| venue | No | The ground's name, for that ground's own chase record. | |
| target | Yes | The target to be chased (first-innings total + 1). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / target / descriptionPrevious value: -"The target to be chased."New value: +"The target to be chased (first-innings total + 1)."Input schema / properties / venueAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The ground's name, for that ground's own chase record.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states it provides a historical rate from a specific dataset (4,502 chases through 17 Sep 2026) and mentions optional ground record. It doesn't disclose potential rate limits or exact output format, but it gives sufficient context for a read-only query.
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 a single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds precise details (range, interval, sample size, date, optional ground record). Every clause adds value.
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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: the statistic, the data scope, and the optional parameter. It doesn't describe the return format, but that's not critical for a historical-rate query.
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 schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds context: 'target' is interpreted as a target within 10 runs of yours, and 'venue' is for an optional ground-specific record, enriching the schema definitions.
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 tool's purpose: it returns the historical chase-down rate for similar targets in men's T20, with specifics like range, sample size, and interval. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like winprob which likely give probabilities, by focusing on historical frequency.
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 description implies the tool is for historical chase difficulty but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like hsh-cricket-chase-winprob. It gives context (men's T20, within 10 runs) but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.
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.