MolTrust

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

Redundantly lists return fields (output schema exists), but fails to disclose side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits despite no 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?

Well-structured docstring format; front-loaded purpose followed by Args section with no extraneous text.

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?

Adequate for a single-parameter query tool; parameter semantics covered via Args section, and return values handled by existing output schema.

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?

Effectively compensates for 0% schema description coverage by providing critical DID format example (did:moltrust:...).

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?

Clear verb ('Get') + resource ('fantasy lineup history and stats'), distinctly positions tool as retrieval vs sibling 'commit' and 'verify' tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus mt_fantasy_commit or mt_fantasy_verify, or when querying is appropriate.

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