teams_get_athlete_bioFetch ESPN athlete biographies by sport, league, and ID, covering birthplace, college, draft details, experience, and physical measurements.
Fetch detailed athlete biography including birthplace, college, draft round and pick, experience, physical measurements, and background.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sport | Yes | ||
| league | Yes | ||
| athlete_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the returned content (birthplace, college, draft, measurements), which is useful, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or failure behavior beyond what the annotations provide.
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 that wastes no space. It is efficient, though the long field list is doing double duty as an ersatz output description.
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 output schema, describing the returned biography fields is genuinely valuable and the description does that. However, the three required input parameters remain unclarified and there is no routing guidance among sibling tools, so it is only partially complete.
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% and all three required parameters (sport, league, athlete_id) are undocumented in the schema. The description is entirely about return fields and contributes nothing about parameter meaning, format, or valid values, leaving the required inputs unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (athlete biography) and enumerates the fields returned. It implicitly separates itself from sibling stat tools, but never names them, so an agent must infer the boundary against teams_get_athlete_overview and teams_get_athlete_stats.
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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. With several adjacent athlete tools (overview, stats, gamelog, splits), the description gives no condition for choosing this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.