fpl_my_team

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the 403 auth failure, the selling_price/purchase_price difference and its transfer-affordability impact, the pre-deadline unlimited transfers status edge case, and the chip_type routing distinction. It also explains that the response was 'VERIFIED against a live squad', adding confidence.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and contains valuable return-structure details, but it is verbose and repeats auth information in multiple places: 'Needs your FPL session cookie', 'Returns 403 ... without FPL_SESSION_COOKIE', and 'Auth: works without a key; FPL_SESSION_COOKIE unlocks more if set.' The all-caps edge-case callouts are useful but make it longer than necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates with a full JSON return shape for picks, chips, and transfers, including enums and null semantics. It also covers failure modes, authentication requirements, an example call, and cross-tool equivalence, making it unusually complete for a one-parameter endpoint.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single managerId parameter, the schema already documents that it is 'Your own manager id' and required as part of the URL path. The description adds only a reinforcing example ('{"managerId": 1}') and does not provide additional parameter nuance beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'YOUR current squad including picks not yet visible to others, plus bank, free transfers and chip availability', naming the exact resource and scope. It is clearly distinct from generic squad/pick tools because it emphasizes the current user's own team and the additional bank/transfer/chip 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 provides clear usage context: it 'Needs your FPL session cookie', notes 403 without it, and the schema says it 'only ever returns YOUR squad', which excludes other managers. It references cross-platform equivalents ('Also answers this: espnfantasy_rosters, sleeper_league_rosters, yahoo_team_roster') but does not explicitly say when to prefer this over FPL sibling tools like fpl_manager_picks or fpl_squad.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.