SportIQ

cricket_differential_picks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify low-ownership cricket players with positive projected upside for fantasy lineups, using estimated ownership from credit weights to surface differential picks.

Instructions

Suggest low-ownership picks with positive projected upside.

Ownership is estimated — proxied by credit weight (lower-credit players tend to have lower ownership), not real ownership data. Flagged estimated: true in the response.

Args: match_id: CricAPI match identifier; resolves team_a/team_b/venue automatically. team_a: First team code/name. Required if match_id is absent. team_b: Second team code/name. Required if match_id is absent. venue: Venue key/name. Required if match_id is absent. ownership_threshold: percent ownership cap; affects estimated label.

Returns: data.picks: list of {name, role, team, credits, projected_points, estimated_ownership_pct, ownership_pct_estimated}. meta.source: model:captain_score (filtered). meta.estimated: true. meta.ownership_source: "heuristic_from_credits". meta.form_source: "default_neutral".

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`venue`	No	Venue key/name. Required if match_id is absent.
`team_a`	No	First team code/name. Required if match_id is absent.
`team_b`	No	Second team code/name. Required if match_id is absent.
`match_id`	No	CricAPI match identifier; resolves team_a/team_b/venue automatically.
`ownership_threshold`	No	percent ownership cap; affects estimated label.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`meta`	No
`error`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description focuses its effort on genuinely additive disclosure: that ownership is a heuristic proxy from credit weight, that responses are flagged estimated: true, and that form data is default_neutral. That is exactly the caveat an agent needs before trusting the output.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and estimation caveat are front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is the right ordering. The Returns block restates information already available in the output schema, so it is slightly redundant but still scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only analytical tool with full schema coverage and a populated output schema, the definition supplies the key provenance caveats an agent needs. It could be stronger only by explicitly routing to or away from its closest siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description largely repeats the schema text for match_id/team_a/team_b/venue. The only added nuance is that match_id auto-resolves the other fields and that ownership_threshold is a percent cap affecting the estimated label — helpful but marginal.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource combination: suggesting low-ownership picks with positive projected upside. 'Low-ownership' and 'projected upside' clearly differentiate it from sibling tools like cricket_captain_recommendation and cricket_build_dream11_team, though those siblings are never named.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the stated goal (differential/low-owned picks), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over cricket_find_value_bets or cricket_captain_recommendation, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server