proplab_pick_detailsRetrieve full details for a specific NBA or WNBA player prop pick by ID, including player, stat, line, score, breakdown, and settlement result.
Get full details for a specific pick by ID: player, stat, line, direction, score, 7-block breakdown, spider chart data, and settlement result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Pick ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return contents but does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior for invalid IDs, or rate limits, so it adds only modest behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence: the purpose is stated first, and the field list earns its place by compensating for the missing output schema. There is no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter lookup tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what data comes back, which is valuable without an output schema, though it could mention error behavior or invalid-ID handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'Pick ID,' so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces that lookup is 'by ID' but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details for a specific pick by ID,' and enumerates the returned fields. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as proplab_evaluate_pick or proplab_track_record.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by 'for a specific pick by ID' – the agent can infer this is for looking up one pick's details. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives for related tasks like evaluating or searching picks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.