Get Player Performance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the granularity (matchday-by-matchday) and implies a read-only historical lookup, but it does not state whether results are paginated, whether they cover all leagues or just one, or what the response looks like. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a simple lookup tool, though it is arguably too sparse to be fully useful.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain league_id semantics and at least sketch the return shape (e.g., points per matchday, season scope). It omits both, leaving the agent to guess how to call it correctly.

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 explain both parameters. It implies player_id via 'for a player' but leaves league_id completely unexplained — whether it filters results, is optional, or defaults to all leagues is unclear. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (a player) and a specific data type (matchday-by-matchday points history), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_player_profile, get_player_market_value_history, and get_player_transfer_history. The retrieval verb is implied by 'history' rather than stated, but the purpose is clear.

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 get_player_profile or scout_player, and no mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the phrase 'points history'.

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