Get Player Market Value History

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 and falls well short: it does not say how granular the history is (daily snapshots? weekly?), how many points a 30-day window returns, whether it errors for unknown players, or whether the data is cached/delayed. Only the timeframe meaning is disclosed.

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 resource and followed by the one parameter clarification worth surfacing. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence is clipped to the point of ambiguity about units and counting.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage across three parameters, the description would need to explain return shape and parameter roles. It supplies only one line of parameter guidance, leaving an agent unable to predict the response or the meaning of league_id.

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, but it only clarifies the 'timeframe' parameter as 'days back to look'. player_id and league_id go entirely unexplained — notably that league_id is nullable/default null and what leaving it null implies for the result.

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 a specific resource (market value history) scoped to a player, so an agent can tell what data it returns. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as get_player_transfer_history or get_player_performance, which is the only thing separating it from a 5.

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 statement of when this tool should be chosen over get_market_player, get_player_profile, or get_player_performance, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferred from the noun phrase in the description.

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