get_trending_playersFind trending fantasy football players by add/drop activity. Set direction (add/drop), lookback hours, and limit to retrieve players with rising or falling ownership.
Get players trending based on add/drop activity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Whether to look at adds or drops. | add |
| limit | No | Number of results (default 25). | |
| lookback_hours | No | Number of hours to look back (default 24). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey that trending is derived from add/drop activity, which adds some signal beyond the name, but it does not explain sorting, response format, or how 'trending' is computed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core purpose and does not waste words.
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?
The tool has optional parameters with clear schema defaults, so invocation is reasonably straightforward. However, with no output schema and no annotation context, the description does not clarify what the returned player objects contain, how results are ordered, or how 'trending' is quantified, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description's add/drop activity phrasing loosely aligns with the 'type' parameter, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('players trending') and identifies the underlying signal ('add/drop activity'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_transactions or get_rosters, though it could more explicitly mention the adjustable type/limit/lookback options.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_transactions or resolve_players. The description implies the intended use through the name and add/drop phrasing, but it does not explicitly state the right context or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.