transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether authentication or league permissions are required, or whether the week parameter controls pagination or filtering. It adds only content scope, not behavioral traits.

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 description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and efficient, though its telegraphic noun-phrase style is less structurally helpful than a direct verb-led statement. It is appropriately sized for a short tool name but borders on under-specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and a crowded sibling set, the description is too thin to guide correct invocation. It omits usage context, parameter semantics for league_id_, and any read/write or permissions signal.

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 for both parameters. It adds meaning for week by saying transactions are returned for a week, but league_id_ is only implicitly referenced by the word 'League' and its default behavior is unexplained. The description does not resolve either parameter's format, default meaning, or required/optional nature.

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 names the resource and scope clearly: league adds, drops, trades, and waiver bids for a given week. It implies a retrieval operation and distinguishes the tool from narrower siblings like waiver_claim or propose_trade, though it never states the verb explicitly. This is clear but not as sharp as an explicit verb+resource definition.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pending, waiver_targets, waiver_claim, trade_block, or propose_trade. The description only describes content categories, leaving all routing decisions to inference. No when/when-not or prerequisite information is provided.

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