sportmonks_players

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that the response shape is unverified from vendor docs, that the provider key is not held, and that the field names should be treated as approximate. It also explains the statistics inclusion mechanism and numeric type_id. This is valuable behavioral context that goes well beyond the structured 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?

The description is dense but mostly relevant: it front-loads the purpose, then provides the return shape, a caveat about unverified data, an example, and auth info. The capitalized 'SHAPE FROM VENDOR DOCS' and 'Example: Players on your plan' add some noise, but overall each sentence contributes useful 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?

For a simple list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned, how to request statistics, the unverified nature of the response shape, and authentication needs. The pagination field in the return shape plus explicit parameter descriptions make this adequately complete.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining how the include parameter works ('statistics.details'), providing an example value, and noting the numeric type_id keying. This gives the agent a better mental model than the schema alone.

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 identifies the resource as players from SportMonks and notes the optional season statistics via include. Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', the phrase 'Players, with season statistics when included' and the return shape make the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming SportMonks and the statistics capability.

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: it returns players and season statistics only when the include parameter is specified. It gives a concrete example of using the include parameter and notes authentication requirements. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it.

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