Retrieve detailed FanDuel Research author information by slug, including bio, images, social accounts, and sports topics covered. Unknown slugs return 404.
FanDuel Research author. Returns one FanDuel Research author: id, slug, bio, images, social accounts, and the sports and topics they write for. An unknown slug returns 404.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| author | Yes | Author slug from the `authors` route, such as `fanduel-staff` |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.16Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It does add real value by disclosing that an unknown slug returns 404, which tells the agent how to detect a bad identifier. It says nothing about read-only/idempotent semantics, rate limits, or whether lookups are cached, so it only partly compensates for the missing annotations.
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?
Two tight sentences with the return payload front-loaded and the error case last. The opening fragment "FanDuel Research author." slightly restates the tool name, which is the only waste, but the remainder is dense and 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?
For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it lists the returned fields and the failure mode. What is missing is naming the sibling that produces the slug, but the schema note covers that gap.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented in the schema, including the example slug `fanduel-staff` and the route to source slugs from. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("Returns one FanDuel Research author") and enumerates the payload (id, slug, bio, images, social accounts, sports, topics). The word "one" implicitly separates it from the sibling list tool fanduel_research_authors, though that sibling is never named explicitly.
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 only implied: the single required "author" slug tells the agent this is a lookup-by-identifier call, and the schema note points at the `authors` route as the source of slugs. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer fanduel_research_authors (discovery) over this tool (detail retrieval).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.