sleeper_traded_picks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the exact return structure with field semantics ('roster_id is the pick's ORIGINAL owner; owner_id holds it now') and 'Auth: none needed.' This goes beyond the annotation baseline, so it earns a 5.

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 and well-structured, with clear sections for purpose, return format, example, and auth. The example request is helpful but presented as a single-line JSON block that could be slightly clearer. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded, earning a 4.

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 one-parameter read endpoint, the description is complete. It explains the return fields and their meanings, notes that no auth is needed, and provides an example. Since there is no output schema, the description effectively fills that gap, making it fully sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter league_id with the description 'League id. Required — part of the URL path.' The tool description adds no further semantic detail about the parameter beyond an example request, so it remains at the baseline of 3.

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 returns 'Draft picks that have changed hands — who owns which future pick (dynasty leagues).' It specifies the exact resource (traded draft picks) and scope (dynasty leagues), and the 'Returns:' line further clarifies the output structure. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sleeper_draft_picks by focusing on traded picks.

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 context for when to use the tool: when needing ownership of traded future picks in dynasty leagues. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for all draft picks use sleeper_draft_picks). Since context is clear but exclusions are absent, it earns a 4.

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