livefpl_price_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It transparently states that the tool returns a JSON object with version and gameweek info, implying a read-only, side-effect-free operation. This is adequate behavioral disclosure for a metadata endpoint, though it doesn't explicitly confirm non-mutation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the return type and use case. No wasted words, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 is simple (no parameters) and an output schema exists, so the description need not detail the JSON structure. It covers the essential information: what it does, what it returns, and why an agent would use it. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per calibration guidelines the baseline is 4. There is nothing to describe beyond what the schema already shows (an empty object). The description appropriately focuses on the return value instead.

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 the tool 'Get[s] metadata about the current FPL price-change window' and specifies the return content (site version/gameweek generation info). This is a distinct resource and verb that separates it from sibling tools like livefpl_price_risers or livefpl_player_prediction, which focus on specific prediction data.

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?

It provides a concrete use case: 'Useful to confirm which gameweek the predictions apply to.' This gives clear context for when to call it. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple status/metadata endpoint.

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