Fantasy cricket picks + captain for a T20 match. Ranks players by predicted fantasy value and names the optimal captain (35.6% captain-hit, 2x random). Dream11-style. Pay per call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| venue | No | Optional venue name for pitch context. | |
| players | Yes | List of player names in the match squad. | |
| is_chase | No | 1 if this team is chasing, else 0. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses key behaviors: ranks players by fantasy value, selects optimal captain with a 35.6% hit rate (2x random), and mentions x402 payment. This is valuable beyond the schema, though it could be more explicit about result format or side effects.
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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, unique selling point (captain hit rate), and pricing model. No extraneous information.
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?
Given moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description lacks information about the return format or structure of the picks and captain result. It also does not explain how venue or is_chase affect predictions. This gap reduces completeness for an agent needing to interpret results.
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% with clear descriptions for all parameters (venue, players, is_chase). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only noting 'Dream11-style' and captain selection. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already provides sufficient detail.
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: to provide fantasy cricket picks and optimal captain for a T20 match, ranking players by predicted value. It distinguishes itself from sibling cricket tools (e.g., hsh-cricket-form, hsh-cricket-chase-difficulty) by focusing specifically on fantasy selection, making the verb+resource pairing highly specific.
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 usage for Dream11-style fantasy cricket but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools. No when-not conditions or prerequisites are provided. The mention of 'Pay per call via x402' gives some usage context but lacks definitive 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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but some closely related tools (e.g., hsh-b2b-*, hsh-esg-* variants) could cause confusion. Descriptions help differentiate, but an agent might still misselect similar products.
Naming convention is mixed: some tools use hyphens (hsh-b2b-contact), others use underscores (hsh_broker_data_request). While mostly readable, the inconsistency could be confusing for agents expecting a uniform pattern.
32 tools is on the high side for a single server, but given its purpose as a data marketplace, the large number reflects a wide catalog. However, it may be overwhelming for agents to navigate.
Covers many data domains but has obvious gaps (e.g., weather, social media). The inclusion of custom data request tools (hsh_describe_data_need, hsh_broker_data_request) mitigates these gaps, allowing agents to request missing data.
