SportIQ

cricket_player_matchup

Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyze head-to-head matchups between two cricket players using career stats and role analysis to determine which player holds an edge and why.

Instructions

Analyse the head-to-head matchup between two cricket players based on role and career stats.

Args: player_a: Player ID or name for the first player. player_b: Player ID or name for the second player.

Returns: data: {matchup_type, edge_holder, edge_reason, signals, role_a, role_b}. meta.estimated: true — heuristic model, not ball-by-ball H2H data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`player_a`	Yes	Player ID or name for the first player.
`player_b`	Yes	Player ID or name for the second player.

Output Schema

TableJSON 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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description openly discloses that this is a heuristic model, not ball-by-ball H2H data, and clarifies that results are estimated (meta.estimated: true). It also reveals the return shape including edge_holder and edge_reason, adding meaningful behavioral context.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact, well-organized with Args and Returns sections, and contains no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the heuristic caveat is clearly stated, earning its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter read-only tool with a documented output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, input semantics, return fields, and the critical estimation limitation, leaving no meaningful gap for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description repeats the schema's player_a/player_b semantics without adding extra detail. There is no additional guidance on ID formats, name resolution behavior, or input preprocessing, so it adds no value beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool analyzes the head-to-head matchup between two cricket players based on role and career stats, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling tool cricket_head_to_head, leaving some ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cricket_head_to_head or cricket_player_form_index. The description implies pairwise player comparison but does not specify exclusions, routing conditions, or preferred scenarios.

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

Deploy Server