season_averagesFetch per-season NBA stat averages for one or more player_ids in a given season year; returns PTS, REB, AST, FG%, and other averages per player.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| season | Yes | ||
| player_ids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "player_ids": [
+ 237,
+ 2544
+ ],
+ "season": 2023
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Response from balldontlie API /season_averages endpoint",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns specific stat averages but does not discuss data freshness, pagination, or any side effects. Given rich annotations, the description provides marginal extra transparency.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Fetch') and includes essential details (resource, parameters, output). No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 description covers inputs (player_ids, season) and outputs (PTS, REB, AST, FG%, other averages). It lacks mention of whether data includes playoffs or regular season, and does not reference the existing output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward data retrieval tool.
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 0% (no parameter descriptions), but the description mentions 'one or more player_ids in a given season year', clarifying both season and player_ids parameters. However, it does not specify data types or constraints (e.g., season format, player_id range), so it adds moderate meaning but not full clarity.
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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and resource 'per-season NBA stat averages' for specific player_ids in a given season year. It lists return fields (PTS, REB, AST, FG%) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'player' or 'stats' that likely provide different data.
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 retrieving per-season averages for identified players, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives (e.g., 'player', 'stats', 'games'). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
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.