Find out which opponent you face in your fantasy football league for a given week, with projected scores for both teams.
Who you are playing this week, and the projected score for both sides.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| week | No | ||
| league | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| summary | Yes | ||
| opponent | Yes | ||
| provenance | Yes | ||
| my_projected | Yes | ||
| their_projected | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the nuance that the score is projected and the context is 'this week', but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as defaulting behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs.
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 words. It is front-loaded with the most important information and every word contributes meaning.
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?
Despite an output schema being present, the complete lack of parameter documentation in both the schema and description leaves significant gaps. An agent cannot confidently invoke the tool correctly without knowing how 'league' is used or what happens when 'week' is null.
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 the description does not explain the 'week' or 'league' parameters at all. The phrase 'this week' only hints at the week parameter, while 'league' remains completely unexplained, leaving an agent unable to determine how to set these optional parameters.
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 clearly identifies the resource ('who you are playing') and the output ('projected score for both sides'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_roster, but the matchup focus is distinct enough on its own.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling get_roster, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.