livefpl_price_risers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the output format (JSON array with specific fields), clarifies the meaning of the threshold parameter (default 0.5, 1.0 for actual price change tonight), and implies a read-only operation by saying 'List'. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a clear Args section and a brief Returns section. The docstring is a bit verbose but each sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. The structure is logical and scannable.

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?

Given that all parameters are optional and the tool is a filtered list, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: the purpose, parameter semantics with examples, threshold behavior, and the exact output fields. Even though an output schema exists, the description still elaborates on the return values, leaving no ambiguity for the agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains each parameter: limit (max number of players), position (GK, DEF, MID, FW), team (case-insensitive substring), and threshold (minimum progress fraction with the practical example of using 1.0). This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema, making the tool easy to call correctly.

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 starts with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('FPL players most likely to RISE in price'), and differentiates from the sibling tool livefpl_price_fallers by capitalizing 'RISE'. An agent can easily tell that this tool is for risers, not fallers, without checking the schema.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like livefpl_price_fallers or livefpl_player_prediction. It implies usage through the 'RISE' keyword and the threshold explanation, but gives no context about typical use cases (e.g., pre-deadline to spot target rises). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing is provided.

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