MCP Dota 2 Match Analysis Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.2.0
Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, particularly around fight analysis (get_fight, get_fight_combat_log, get_fight_replay, list_fights, get_teamfights) and positional/timeline data (get_hero_positions, get_position_timeline). An agent could easily select the wrong tool without detailed descriptions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., get_hero_deaths, list_fights, download_replay). The verbs are appropriate and predictable.
Tool Count2/5
With 41 tools, the server is over-scoped. Many tools cover niche sub-features (camp stacks, courier kills, rune pickups) that could be consolidated. The count exceeds the recommended range and places a heavy cognitive load on agents.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the core match analysis workflow well: replay management, fight analysis, stats, drafts, objectives, and even pro player/team data. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit ward/vision analysis), but overall coverage is strong.
Average 3.6/5 across 34 of 41 tools scored. Lowest: 2.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on December 12, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Get', implying a read operation. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or any specific behavior, leaving the agent without safety or side-effect information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb. However, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful, so while efficient, it lacks substantive content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of closely related tools like get_fight_combat_log and get_teamfights, the description is incomplete without clarifying the unique payload. An output schema exists, but the description alone does not provide enough context for correct selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention match_id or fight_id at all, adding no meaning beyond the property names in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool gets detailed information about a specific fight, providing a clear verb and resource. However, it is vague about what 'detailed information' includes and does not differentiate from siblings like get_fight_combat_log or get_teamfights.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but fails to explain what 'detailed stats' include, how the 10 heroes are determined, or any other behavioral traits such as data source or limitations. The description is too minimal to be transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is well-structured and avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, it is so brief that it under-specifies key details, so it doesn't fully earn its place beyond basic identification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists and the tool has a simple parameter set, the description leaves critical ambiguity: what exactly are 'the 10 heroes' (e.g., picked heroes, kills-related?) and what stats are included. It doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use it correctly without additional inference, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the match_id parameter at all. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare integer field, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. For a single-parameter tool, it could easily explain what match_id represents.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets the 10 heroes from a Dota 2 match with detailed stats. The verb 'Get' and resource 'heroes in a Dota 2 match' are specific, and the mention of '10 heroes' provides a distinguishing detail compared to sibling tools like get_hero_performance or get_hero_deaths, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description omits any context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'gets' data (implying a read-only operation), but does not disclose whether authentication is required, how the time-series data is structured, whether there are pagination or rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. The output schema is mentioned but not described in the tool definition.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no fluff, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified and does not convey enough context to be genuinely useful. It is concise but not adequately informative, so it falls in the middle.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large set of sibling tools and the lack of annotations, the description is too sparse to help an agent select the correct tool. There is no mention of what makes this timeline unique, what data points are included, or how it differs from similar tools like get_position_timeline or get_snapshot_at_time. Even with an output schema, the description's ambiguity leaves a significant gap in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the match_id parameter beyond the implicit connection to 'a Dota 2 match'. The schema only says 'integer' and 'required', and the description does not add constraints, valid ranges, or clarify that match_id is the unique identifier for the match. This is minimal semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('time-series data for a Dota 2 match'), which directly conveys the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like get_position_timeline or get_stats_at_minute, both of which could be considered time-series data. The description is clear but lacks distinguishing scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no information about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or typical use cases. An agent is left without guidance on whether to pick this or get_snapshot_at_time, get_teamfights, etc.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the analytical nature and key output themes, but does not explain how the pattern is computed, the role of time range parameters, or any prerequisites like replay availability. It adds some context beyond 'analyze' but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, efficiently packs the core purpose and key outputs. No fluff or redundancy. However, it may be too terse given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With four parameters, zero schema descriptions, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter meanings, usage differentiation, and behavioral details, though the existence of an output schema reduces some burden.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions only 'hero' implicitly without explaining parameter formats or the meaning of start_minute/end_minute. The agent is left without crucial parameter semantics for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool analyzes a hero's farming pattern, with specific aspects like camp sequences, power spikes, and routes. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning these unique outputs, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or preferred scenarios are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the general description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data source, freshness, required permissions, or potential side effects. For a minimal one-line description, it offers only the most basic implication of a safe read.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, brief sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, the vagueness of 'summary' means it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, so it doesn't earn a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is still incomplete. It does not clarify what 'laning phase' constitutes, what the summary contains, or how this tool relates to sibling tools such as get_match_timeline or get_fight. The absence of annotations makes the lack of behavioral context more impactful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%—the input schema provides no descriptions for the match_id parameter. The description does not elaborate on what match_id refers to or any formatting/range constraints. Since the schema provides only name and type, and the description adds no meaning, parameter semantics are poorly addressed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get laning phase summary for a Dota 2 match.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('laning phase summary'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_fight or get_jungle_summary. However, it lacks additional scoping details that could further differentiate it from similar summary tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of appropriate contexts, limitations, or exclusions. The existence of many sibling tools with similar 'get_*' patterns makes this lack of guidance notably deficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, placing full burden on the description. The description only says 'get' and provides no information about what the snapshot contains, how it behaves, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded, though lacks detail (which is covered by other dimensions).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool appears simple with 2 params and an output schema, but the description is too vague to understand what a 'game state snapshot' includes. The presence of many sibling tools and no guidance makes the description insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only references 'specific game time', leaving match_id undocumented. It does not clarify units for game_time or add semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a game state snapshot at a given game time, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_stats_at_minute or get_hero_positions that also provide game-related data at a time.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says 'Get recent matches' without defining 'recent', mentioning the default limit of 50, or clarifying that this is a read-only operation. The output schema covers return values, but the ambiguity of 'recent' and lack of side-effect disclosure leave significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant phrases. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and low schema coverage, this description is too terse. It does not explain the meaning of 'recent', the effect of the limit parameter, or how this tool fits among the many sibling match-related tools. The output schema may provide return structure, but the description leaves critical context unresolved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It implies team_id via 'for a team' but does not clarify the role of limit or define the scope of 'recent matches'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves recent matches for a team, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It adds the qualifier 'recent' to distinguish from general match queries, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_pro_matches or get_teamfights.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_team for team details or get_match_info for a specific match. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention any side effects, performance implications, data format, or limitations. 'High-resolution replay data' is ambiguous and does not explain what the agent should expect or what constraints apply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, stating exactly the action and target without filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is very sparse. It doesn't explain what 'high-resolution' means, what time range parameters expect (e.g., seconds, milliseconds), or how this relates to the broader fight-oriented toolset. The tool has moderate complexity with 4 parameters and no annotations, so the description should provide more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description provides no parameter explanations. Parameter names (match_id, start_time, end_time, interval_seconds) are somewhat self-explanatory, but units and format are not specified. The description adds no value to the schema, and the minimal names do not compensate for the lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb+resource: 'Get high-resolution replay data for a fight.' It indicates the tool retrieves fight replay data, but 'high-resolution' is vague and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like get_fight_combat_log or get_raw_combat_events. It is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply says what it does, without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or when another tool might be more appropriate. With many sibling tools, this is a notable gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the primary function without disclosing pagination, filtering behavior, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. A read operation is implied, but no safety or side-effect information is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is concise and easy to parse, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description fails to explain the optional 'tier' parameter or provide any usage context. The complete lack of guidance on how to use the tool or what to expect makes it insufficient for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has an optional 'tier' parameter, but the description does not explain what 'tier' means, what values it accepts, or how it filters results. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a critical omission.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get all Dota 2 leagues/tournaments' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_league_matches or get_tournament_series that operate on a single league or series. The phrase 'all' also signals a list operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of what scenario it serves. The agent must rely solely on the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic function without disclosing any caveats, required auth, rate limits, or data source. The description adds little beyond what the tool's name implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no superfluous content. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it lacks detail in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The existence of an output schema covers return values, but the description lacks usage context, parameter guidance, and sibling differentiation. For a tool with a single parameter and no annotations, this is minimal but may be insufficient for correct selection among many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the match_id parameter or provide any additional context. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description offers no guidance on format or provenance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('match metadata and player information'), making it a clear statement of what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like get_match_players or get_match_heroes, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, exclusions, or alternative tool selection. With many sibling tools, this is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as performance implications, data availability limits, or whether the data is aggregated or raw. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words or fluff. It effectively captures the core operation in a concise manner, earning a top score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, but the description is minimal. It fails to explain the optional hero_filter parameter or provide context on how this tool relates to siblings like get_jungle_summary or get_farming_pattern. The description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. While match_id is inferable from context, hero_filter is entirely unexplained—its purpose and possible values are not addressed. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare property names in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('all neutral camp stacks') and scope ('in a Dota 2 match'). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_jungle_summary or get_farming_pattern, which focus on other aspects of the match.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what it does without context for selection among the many get_* sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description is minimal. It says 'Get detailed information' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as error conditions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the nature of the returned data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that conveys the core function without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id tool, the description and existing output schema may be minimally sufficient. However, it lacks context on when to use this tool relative to other player lookup siblings, which reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the only parameter account_id is an integer with no explanation. The description says 'by account ID', which simply restates the parameter name and adds no extra meaning such as definition, format, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets detailed information about a professional player using an account ID. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_pro_player_by_name, which likely uses a name, but it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_pro_player, get_pro_player_by_name, or other player-related tools. The description only implies usage when an account ID is available, with no explicit exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the function, not behaviors like case sensitivity, handling of unknown names, rate limits, or whether it returns multiple matches. These gaps could lead an agent to misuse the tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is slightly vague ('detailed information') and could include more useful detail without significantly increasing length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimal but still incomplete. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral details, and parameter semantics. The output schema covers return structure, but the description does not help an agent decide when this tool is the right choice among many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only rephrases the parameter name ('by name') without adding meaning. It does not clarify the format (e.g., full name, display name), case sensitivity, or whether partial names are valid. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: getting detailed information about a professional player by name. The verb 'get' and the resource 'professional player by name' are specific and distinguish this from sibling tools like search_pro_player (which likely returns search results) and get_pro_player (which may use an ID).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_pro_player or get_pro_player. The description does not mention prerequisites, exact-match expectations, or when the tool might be inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get detailed information', without disclosing what 'detailed' includes, potential errors (e.g., not found), response shape, or edge cases like duplicate names. The read-only behavior is implied by 'get' but not explicitly detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and object. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks context about uniqueness of team names, error behavior, and its relationship to sibling tools. It is complete enough for basic invocation but leaves uncertainty.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information beyond the word 'name'. It does not specify format, exact vs fuzzy matching, or case sensitivity. The parameter is self-explanatory from its name, but the description provides no additional semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('team'), and specifies the lookup key ('by name'). It clearly states what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_team' (likely ID-based) or 'search_team' (likely partial-match).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for exact-name lookup or that 'search_team' should be used for partial matches. The usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the core function and gives no information about error cases, data availability, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies it). No additional behavioral context is disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (single parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics, making it incomplete for a tool with no annotations. The output schema helps, but the description itself does not provide enough standalone context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter (match_id) with no description, and the tool description does not mention this parameter at all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate by clarifying the parameter's meaning or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action (Get) and a specific resource (the 10 players in a Dota 2 match with their hero assignments). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_match_heroes by focusing on players and hero assignments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites, exclusions, or context. It simply states what the tool does without explaining appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns, omitting any behavior like read-only status, potential empty results for matches without drafts, or performance characteristics. This lack of transparency leaves the agent without important operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly communicates the tool's function. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, but the description lacks important contextual details such as when a draft is available or how this tool relates to sibling tools. It is adequate for basic identification but not sufficiently complete to guide an agent in all relevant scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter (match_id) with no description, resulting in 0% coverage. The description does not explain match_id or its expected format, forcing the agent to rely on the name alone. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'complete draft (picks and bans) for a Dota 2 match' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_match_heroes or get_match_info by focusing on the drafting phase, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., matches with a draft phase) or how it relates to other match-related tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain whether stats are cumulative or instantaneous at that minute, what 'player stats' includes (e.g., KDA, net worth), or any constraints like minute bounds. This leaves critical interpretation up to the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and scope, matching the tool's simple parameter set.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the output schema likely documents return fields, the description omits critical context about what 'player stats' covers and how the minute parameter is interpreted. Given the large sibling toolset and no annotations, this sparse description leaves significant ambiguity for a simple-looking tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema defines match_id and minute as integers with no descriptions. The description adds context that minute refers to a specific minute in the match, which gives some meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it doesn't clarify units (e.g., minutes since start) or the range of acceptable values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'player stats' scoped to 'a specific minute in a Dota 2 match.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cs_at_minute (creep stats only) and get_match_timeline. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_cs_at_minute or get_snapshot_at_time. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned. The description simply states what it does without situating it in the broader toolset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes a read-only retrieval but does not mention potential error conditions, rate limits, or assumptions about match_id or minute validity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the main verb and content, containing no redundant or extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose. However, it lacks usage guidance, sibling differentiation, and any behavioral caveats, making it moderately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema defines two integer parameters (match_id, minute) with 0% coverage from the description. The description adds meaning by explaining the minute dimension ('at a specific minute'), but leaves match_id implicit and does not clarify valid ranges or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves last hits, denies, gold, and level for all heroes at a specific minute. It is specific about the resource but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_stats_at_minute or get_snapshot_at_time.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_stats_at_minute. There is no mention of preferred contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe what the summary includes, how it is structured, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. The description provides only a high-level action without behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key verb and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a very simple interface (one parameter) and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, the lack of usage guidance and behavioral transparency makes the description incomplete for an agent to properly decide when and how to use it, especially among many similar sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention match_id at all. Although match_id is self-explanatory in the schema, the description adds no value beyond the parameter name, and with zero coverage it fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the purpose clearly with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('jungle activity summary'), and scope ('for a Dota 2 match'). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_lane_summary by specifying 'jungle' instead of 'lane'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied: this tool is for obtaining a jungle activity summary for a specific match. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_lane_summary or get_farming_pattern, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool's basic function ('Get hero positions') and adds no context about read-only behavior, data format, coordinate system, or potential error conditions. The description adds no value beyond what the name and schema already imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no unnecessary words or redundancy, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is complete enough for a basic getter. However, it does not explain how this tool differs from close siblings like get_position_timeline or get_snapshot_at_time, nor does it clarify what 'positions' includes (e.g., all heroes, coordinate system). This leaves some ambiguity for the agent in a rich sibling context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly hints that 'match' relates to match_id and 'specific minute' relates to minute. It does not clarify units (e.g., seconds vs minutes), valid ranges, or the meaning of the position data. This is insufficient given the complete lack of property descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get'), the resource ('hero positions'), and the scope ('at a specific minute in a Dota 2 match'). It distinguishes from similar sibling tools like get_position_timeline (which implies a timeline) and get_snapshot_at_time (which implies a full snapshot), making the specific purpose evident.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for a single point in time ('at a specific minute'), which hints at a distinction from timeline-based tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so the guidance is only implied rather than clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'series grouping' as a behavior, but fails to disclose how limit is applied (per series or per match), error handling, or ordering, leaving significant ambiguity for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous detail. It is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description lacks details on parameter semantics and behavioral specifics like pagination or grouping structure, making it minimally adequate for a 2-parameter read tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It connects to league_id via 'specific league/tournament', but leaves the 'limit' parameter entirely unexplained and doesn't clarify how limit interacts with series grouping.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('matches from a specific league/tournament'), and adds a distinguishing behavioral detail ('with series grouping') that differentiates it from sibling tools like get_pro_matches or get_team_matches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (when you need matches from a particular league) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over get_pro_matches or get_team_matches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it 'Returns rotation events, gank attempts, and their success rates,' which gives a clear picture of the output. However, it does not disclose limitations like the default time window (0-20 minutes), any potential side effects (though likely read-only), or how the analysis is computed. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by output details. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is adequate for a basic understanding but incomplete. It does not explain the time-window parameters, how they affect results, or how this tool fits among siblings like get_hero_positions or get_match_timeline. The core purpose is clear, but the operational context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters (match_id, start_minute, end_minute). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no extra meaning, such as how the time window affects the analysis or that match_id is required. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states what the tool does: 'Analyze hero rotations - movement patterns between lanes and outcomes' and lists specific outputs ('rotation events, gank attempts, and their success rates'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_hero_positions or get_lane_summary, which focus on different aspects of match data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or name any sibling tools to differentiate from. The only implied usage is 'if you need rotation analysis,' which is not enough to help an agent choose correctly among many similar positional/analysis tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing search behavior (e.g., partial matching, case sensitivity, result sorting) or limits. This is a significant gap for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It earns its place but could be expanded with essential details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple purpose, but the description lacks crucial context about parameter usage and search behavior. While an output schema exists, the description does not mention the optional max_results parameter, and with no annotations, the overall coverage is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds no detail for the 'max_results' parameter and only implies 'query' as the search term. With two parameters, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('professional Dota 2 players') with a scoping detail ('by name or alias'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_team (teams) and get_pro_player (direct retrieval).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for finding players by name or alias, but does not explicitly mention when to use this search versus the sibling get_pro_player_by_name, nor does it state any exclusions. However, the context is clear enough for a basic search use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens when the team ID is not found, or any error behavior. The phrase 'detailed information' is vague and lacks concrete expectations beyond the output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the intent and contains only the necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core function. However, it lacks usage guidelines and explicit behavioral expectations, which are important context for an agent deciding when to invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the parameter is the team identifier ('by ID'), but it does not explain how to obtain this ID or any format constraints beyond the schema's integer type. The parameter name itself is reasonably self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (get), the resource (team), and the method (by ID). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like search_team and get_team_by_name which have different lookup mechanisms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by ID' implies that it should be used when a team ID is already known, but no explicit guidance is given on when to use alternatives like search_team or get_team_by_name. This is a minimal but present usage hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention return format, potential limitations, or any special behavior beyond the basic query, leaving a significant transparency gap for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose without extraneous information. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema and a modest parameter set, but the description omits key context such as how it differs from get_hero_positions and does not mention all parameters. It is minimally adequate but incomplete for an agent to fully exploit the tool's capabilities.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only vaguely references 'time range' and 'regular intervals' without explaining individual parameters like hero_filter or interval_seconds. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving hero positions over a time range at regular intervals. This specific scope distinguishes it from related tools like get_snapshot_at_time (single time point) and get_match_timeline (broader timeline data).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear use case: obtaining hero positions sampled over time, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the searchable fields (name, tag, alias) and implies a read-only search operation. Yet it does not disclose matching semantics (e.g., fuzzy vs exact), result ordering, or potential rate limits, so it only partially covers behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly constructed sentence with no redundant words. The action verb is front-loaded, and every phrase ('professional Dota 2 teams', 'by name, tag, or alias') adds necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the purpose and core search fields. It lacks explicit differentiation from siblings and behavioral notes like pagination or match behavior, but these are not critical for a basic search tool, so it earns a 4.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the 'query' parameter accepts a team name, tag, or alias, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, 'max_results' is not explained, and the description does not elaborate on format or constraints, leaving a slight gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('professional Dota 2 teams') and specifies the search method ('by name, tag, or alias'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_team (likely by ID) and get_team_by_name (exact lookup), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly indicates this is the search tool for teams by name/tag/alias, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives (e.g., get_team_by_name for exact name lookups) or exclude cases, falling short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden. It explains the raw nature and detail levels, but does not disclose default behaviors for null time windows (e.g., whether it covers the full match), ordering, pagination, or potential limits beyond max_events.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a purpose statement, a usage tip, and a parameter list. The only minor redundancy is that detail_level is explained both in the opening paragraph and in the list, but overall it is concise and each sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, usage context, and all parameters, and an output schema exists so return values are not needed. However, it does not explain the behavior when start_time or end_time are null (e.g., do they default to the full match?), which is a notable gap for time-window tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, including start_time/end_time in seconds, hero/ability filters, the detail_level enum, and max_events. This is significantly more informative than the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get raw combat events for a specific time window' with a specific verb and resource, and further distinguishes itself by specifying 'Use for analyzing non-fight moments (e.g., Roshan attempts, specific plays)', which sets it apart from fight-focused sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides a usage context ('non-fight moments') and explains the detail_level options, but it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content ('fight count, timing, participants, and deaths'), which helps, but it does not mention any limitations, side effects, or performance considerations. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a concise summary and return info, followed by an organized Args block. Each parameter explanation is brief and informative, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a 6-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all parameters and provides a return summary. Since an output schema exists, detailed return field descriptions are not required. It is complete for its complexity, though it does not explain relationships to sibling tools or edge cases like empty results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description explains every parameter with meaningful semantics and examples, e.g. 'location: Filter by map location (partial match, e.g. t1, roshan_pit)' and 'is_teamfight: Filter to teamfights only (True) or skirmishes only (False)'. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all fights/skirmishes in a match with death summaries' – a specific verb (List), resource (fights/skirmishes), and scope (in a match). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_fight (single fight) and get_teamfights (teamfights only) by covering both fights and skirmishes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it lists fights/skirmishes with optional filters, and the Args clarify filter semantics. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as using get_teamfights for teamfight-only queries or get_fight for a specific fight.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the output as a list of courier kill events and details each field's semantics (e.g., 'game_time: Seconds since game start'), which gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect. It does not address edge cases like empty results or error behavior, but for a read-only query, the disclosure is quite solid.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized with a summary line, bulleted output fields, and separate Args/Returns sections. It is mostly concise, though the 'Returns:' section at the end slightly duplicates the initial 'Returns a list of courier kill events' sentence, adding minor redundancy without detracting heavily from clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no nested output), and an output schema is present, so the description does not need to explain return structure in depth. It does provide field semantics and match_id context, making it complete enough for the tool's complexity. The main gap is the lack of guidance on when to choose this over related tools, but given the low complexity, this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only specifies match_id as an integer with no description, so the description's 'match_id: The Dota 2 match ID' adds semantic meaning that the integer represents a Dota 2 match identifier. While minimal, this compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and is sufficient for the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get all courier kills in a Dota 2 match.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_objective_kills or get_hero_deaths by focusing specifically on courier kills, and the detailed list of returned fields reinforces its unique purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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 you need courier kill events for a given Dota 2 match. It implicitly tells the agent to use this for courier-specific data, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like get_objective_kills or mention exclusions, so it stops short of a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the automatic fight detection behavior and the output content (deaths, abilities, key moments). It does not mention error handling or explicitly state non-destructive behavior, but the verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation. This is reasonably transparent but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The main description is two focused sentences, followed by a compact Args block that lists each parameter with a brief, useful explanation. No redundant or placeholder language exists; every line contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all parameters, explains the auto-detection behavior, and summarizes the output content. An output schema exists (though not shown), so detailed return structure is not required. Minor gaps include no mention of what happens if no fight is found or how the 'sequence' is ordered, but overall it is adequate for a 5-parameter tool with an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section is the sole parameter documentation. It provides meaningful details for all five parameters: example format for reference_time, purpose for hero ('anchor fight detection'), enum options for detail_level, and clear semantics for match_id and max_events. This fully compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed event-by-event combat log for a specific fight.' It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'specific fight' and 'Automatically detects the fight around reference_time', which sets it apart from list_fights or get_teamfights.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (retrieving combat details for a fight at a given time) and explains the auto-detection mechanic, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions when this tool should be preferred over siblings like get_raw_combat_events or get_fight. No exclusions or comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses some behavioral traits, such as 'fuzzy match' for league_name, limit default, and days_back filtering. However, it does not describe the exact structure of the returned data or any potential side effects (though it is a read operation). It adds moderate context beyond the schema but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. The summary line states the purpose, the 'Use this for' line gives context, and the Args list is organized and to the point. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential context for a filterable read tool: purpose, usage, and full parameter semantics. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It could be slightly more explicit about the optional nature of all filters, but that is evident from the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly by explaining each parameter: league_name (fuzzy match), league_id (specific ID), team_name (series involving team), limit (maximum series, default 20), and days_back (only last N days). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get tournament series with bracket/game details' and provides a specific use case ('tournament progression analysis'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on series outcomes (Bo3/Bo5) and bracket advancement, which is distinct from match-level tools like get_pro_matches or get_league_matches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear usage context: 'Use this for tournament progression analysis: series results, Bo3/Bo5 outcomes, team advancement through brackets.' It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the targeted use case is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states that cached data is deleted and that subsequent analysis requests trigger a fresh download and parse. This is sufficiently transparent for a delete operation, though it does not mention any reversibility or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a main statement, bulleted use cases, a consequence clause, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear action) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what the parameter means. The re-download behavior is an important side effect that is explicitly mentioned, making the context complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only lists match_id as an integer with no description (schema coverage 0%). The description compensates by defining match_id as 'The Dota 2 match ID to delete cached data for', adding the necessary semantic meaning for invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Delete cached replay file and parsed data for a match', which clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like download_replay and all get_* tools, which are all read or download operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use cases (corrupted replay, force fresh download, outdated parsed data) and explains the consequence of deletion. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name an alternative tool, so it lacks a clear exclusion clause.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Returns information about sampling, roots, and other client capabilities,' which clearly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. The 'Diagnostic tool' label further signals safety. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a simple capability check, this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It is concise with no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (no params, has an output schema), and the description adequately explains what it does and what it returns. It does not need to elaborate on return values since an output schema exists. There are no prerequisites or additional context needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining what the output will contain (sampling, roots, etc.), which helps an agent understand the purpose without needing parameter details. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Diagnostic tool to check what MCP capabilities the connected client supports.' The verb 'check' and resource 'client capabilities' are specific, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools which all focus on match data retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by labeling the tool as 'Diagnostic' and stating it checks client capabilities. It implies use when needing to verify MCP capabilities, and no alternatives are needed since it is unique among siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the list is chronological, that game_time can be negative for pre-horn purchases, and that item names use internal Dota format (e.g., 'item_bfury'). This goes beyond a basic read-only hint, though it does not discuss edge cases like missing matches or empty results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized with clear sections (Returns, Use Cases, Args, Returns) and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. Every bullet and example adds value, and there is no fluff or repetition beyond the acceptable final Returns summary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what data is returned, the meaning of key fields, example usage, and parameter semantics. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing to inspect siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: match_id is described as 'The Dota 2 match ID,' and hero_filter is explained as 'Only include purchases by this hero' with an example ('juggernaut'). The match_id explanation adds little beyond the parameter name, but the hero_filter description and example provide meaningful usage guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get item purchase timings for heroes in a Dota 2 match.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and the unique data it returns (chronological item purchases), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_hero_deaths or get_rune_pickups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit example questions the tool can answer ('When did Juggernaut finish Battlefury?'), giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention any exclusions or alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains what data is returned (e.g., Roshan kill includes game_time, killer, team, kill_number) and the overall response type (ObjectiveKillsResponse). This adds substantial context beyond the schema, though it omits details like read-only nature or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a leading summary, a bulleted breakdown of returned objectives, and a separate 'Use this to analyze' section. Every sentence adds value, and the format makes it easy to scan quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return structures extensively. It still covers what objectives are included, their fields, and common use cases. For a single-parameter match-scoped tool, this is complete and self-sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter (match_id) with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by stating 'match_id: The Dota 2 match ID,' which clarifies the meaning beyond the bare schema type. Since this is a single simple parameter, this explanation is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Get all major objective kills in a Dota 2 match.' It clearly enumerates the objective types (Roshan, Tormentor, Towers, Barracks) and their associated fields, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_hero_deaths or get_teamfights.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit analytical use cases under 'Use this to analyze:' such as 'When did each team take Roshan?' and 'Tower trade patterns and timing.' This gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It details what the tool returns (a list of events with specific fields), and clearly notes a critical limitation (only power runes are detectable). It does not discuss potential errors or side effects, but for a read-only retrieval tool this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized: a one-line summary, then a bulleted list of return fields, a limitation note, example questions, and an args/returns section. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains the return fields, notes the limitation, and gives example use cases. The presence of an output schema means the description need not detail the response structure, but it does anyway, making the tool self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter (match_id), but the description compensates by stating 'match_id: The Dota 2 match ID.' This provides clear meaning beyond the bare integer type in the schema, fully covering the parameter's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Get power rune pickups in a Dota 2 match' — a specific verb ('Get') plus a clear resource ('power rune pickups') and context ('in a Dota 2 match'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on rune pickups, which is unique among the listed tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context through example questions and explicitly states that only power runes are trackable, which serves as a when-not to use this tool for other rune types. However, it does not name an alternative tool (e.g., 'use get_item_purchases for items'), so it lacks explicit alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool filters by minimum deaths (default 3), optional location, and time range, and that it returns teamfight timing, participants, death sequences, and analysis. No surprising side effects or safety concerns are omitted, though it does not explicitly state read-only behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: two introductory sentences and five parameter lines. It front-loads the core purpose and every sentence adds value without redundancy. The formatting is clear and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (not shown) and 5 parameters, all of which are well-documented in the description. The high-level return content is stated. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but the core functionality and parameters are sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides a dedicated Args section explaining each parameter in detail, including the default for min_deaths and a partial-match example for location. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and adds meaningful semantics beyond type/default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'Get major teamfights (3+ deaths) with coaching analysis', which clearly specifies the resource (teamfights), the verb (get), and the distinguishing scope (major with 3+ deaths). It also lists returned data (timing, participants, death sequences, analysis), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_fight or list_fights.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool by specifying 'major teamfights (3+ deaths)' and supporting filters for location and time. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over similar fight-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses chronological ordering, partial-match filtering (with examples like 'jugg' and 'roshan'), and time range filtering with units. It doesn't address edge cases like invalid match IDs or unusual death types, but overall it provides substantial behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is tight and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence return summary, a one-sentence use case, and a clean args list. No redundant text or fluff—every line earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters and an output schema present, the description covers all input semantics and the return content (killer, victim, time, location, ability). It also gives practical usage context. The output schema handles the full return structure, so nothing important is left out.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the Args section in the description documents all 7 parameters with meanings, types, and examples (e.g., 'partial match, e.g. jugg', 'location partial match, e.g. roshan', 'seconds'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Get chronological list of ALL hero deaths in a match', using a specific verb and clearly identifying the resource (hero deaths) and scope (chronological, all in a match). It also states the return fields and common use cases, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_teamfights or get_courier_kills.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use for global death timeline, first blood, or death pattern analysis', providing clear use cases. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of the 'explicit alternatives' criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite lacking annotations, the description explains what the tool returns (kills, deaths, assists, ability stats, per-fight breakdowns) and how time filtering affects results. It discloses that start_time/end_time filter fights, which is a behavioral trait not apparent from the schema. While it doesn't mention performance implications or auth requirements, the given details provide a reasonable understanding of the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: a main summary, a list of return values, then parameter-specific usage notes and examples. It is appropriately sized for five parameters, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (not shown) and this description covers all parameters, return content, and common usage scenarios, it is complete for the complexity involved. The combination of detailed parameter semantics and behavior descriptions leaves no major gaps for a user to start using the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly with an Args section that explains each parameter (match_id, hero, ability_filter, start_time, end_time), including examples for hero and ability_filter and time range semantics. This fully bridges the gap left by the sparse schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Get comprehensive performance data for a hero' which clearly identifies the action, resource, and scope. It goes on to enumerate specific metrics (kills, deaths, assists, ability stats, per-fight breakdowns), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_hero_deaths or get_fight by showing it aggregates multiple performance dimensions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance for parameters: 'Use ability_filter for specific ability analysis' and 'Use start_time/end_time to analyze specific game phases' with concrete examples for common time ranges (early/mid/late game). It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, but the context is clear enough to infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses several behavioral details: returns a flat list without series grouping, fuzzy matching on team names, case-insensitive league name matching, and head-to-head behavior when both team parameters are combined. It does not discuss return format (covered by output schema) or side effects, so it's not perfect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the primary purpose, then a single-line alternative hint, then a clean Args list. No filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with six optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the key use cases and parameter interactions. It could clarify the default time window for 'recent' matches, but overall it's quite complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates thoroughly by explaining all six parameters with defaults (limit 50), filter semantics (tier levels), and special behavior (team1 alone vs with team2; league_name contains case-insensitive).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Get recent professional Dota 2 matches as a flat list.' It further distinguishes from a sibling by stating 'Returns individual matches without series grouping. Use get_tournament_series for bracket/series analysis.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly names get_tournament_series as the alternative for bracket/series analysis, and clarifies that this tool returns flat individual matches. This gives clear when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the caching side effect, the multi-stage download progress with percentages, and the return type. It does not mention potential failure modes or cleanup options (e.g., delete_replay), but covers the primary behavior transparently.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized with clear sections for purpose, usage advice, progress stages, arguments, and return value. Each sentence adds necessary detail, and the critical first sentence immediately states the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a download/caching tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: when to use it, expected download time, caching semantics, progress reporting, and the returned response type. It integrates well with the sibling analysis tools by prescribing its use first.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only defines match_id as an integer with no description. The description compensates fully by explaining it is 'The Dota 2 match ID (from OpenDota, Dotabuff, or in-game),' adding source context and practical meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Download and cache the replay file for a Dota 2 match,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the many analysis sibling tools by instructing to 'Use this tool FIRST before asking analysis questions about a match.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this tool FIRST before asking analysis questions about a match.' It also provides important usage context about file size, download time, and caching behavior that informs whether to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-replay-dota2 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DeepBlueCoding/mcp-replay-dota2/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DeepBlueCoding/mcp-replay-dota2)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-replay-dota2 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DeepBlueCoding/mcp-replay-dota2/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DeepBlueCoding/mcp-replay-dota2)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/DeepBlueCoding/mcp-replay-dota2'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server