Token Bowl MCP Server

evaluate_waiver_priority_cost

Evaluate whether spending waiver priority is worth it by comparing projected points gain against priority value, then get a claim or wait recommendation.

Instructions

Calculate if using waiver priority is worth it.

Evaluates whether to use waiver priority based on expected value and historical patterns.

Args: current_position: Current waiver priority position (1 is best). Can be integer or string. Valid range: 1-10. projected_points_gain: Expected points gain per week from the player. Can be float or string. Must be non-negative. weeks_remaining: Weeks left in fantasy season (default: 14). Can be integer or string. Valid range: 1-18.

Returns analysis including:

recommended_action: "claim" or "wait"
expected_value: Total projected points value
priority_value: Estimated value of holding priority
historical_context: How often top priority matters
break_even_threshold: Points needed to justify claim

Returns: Dict with waiver priority cost analysis and recommendation

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`weeks_remaining`	No
`current_position`	Yes
`projected_points_gain`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

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 lists return fields, but does not state that the tool is read-only, that it makes no external changes, or any other behavioral trait beyond what the output schema already covers. The return details are largely redundant given the existing 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Reasonably structured with purpose, Args, and Returns sections, but redundant: it first lists return fields, then repeats 'Returns: Dict with waiver priority cost analysis and recommendation.' The output schema already covers return values, so the duplicated return detail is unnecessary.

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 output schema exists and parameter coverage is fully handled by the description, the definition is largely complete for calling the tool. The main missing piece is behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature) and explicit usage guidance, which are minor for a pure calculation tool.

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%, and the description compensates thoroughly: it explains each parameter's meaning, acceptable types, valid ranges, and defaults (e.g., current_position 1 is best and 1-10, projected_points_gain non-negative, weeks_remaining default 14 and 1-18). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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?

States a clear verb and resource: calculate/evaluate whether using waiver priority is worth it. Distinguishes the tool as a decision-support calculator, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_waiver_analysis or get_waiver_wire_players.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this over alternatives, and no exclusions. The first sentence implies it is for waiver-priority decisions, but an agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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

Deploy Server