get_value_changes

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only offers a general 'screen' action that implies read-only intent. It does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, return format, or any other behavioral details, leaving the agent without crucial operational context.

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 that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It is efficient in structure, though the brevity sacrifices content depth, which is a separate issue from structural conciseness.

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 tool with four parameters, two required, and no annotations, this description is inadequate. It does not describe the output, filtering behavior, or parameter semantics, despite having an output schema that could be referenced. The description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional investigation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description alone is responsible for clarifying parameters. It hints at the 'since' parameter via 'since a timestamp' but fails to explain 'horizon', 'limit', or 'league_id', leaving the meaning and usage of these parameters entirely ambiguous.

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 states a specific action ('Screen') and target ('projection, market, trend, or contextual changes since a timestamp'), conveying the tool's purpose well. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that also involve data retrieval or analysis, missing the chance to clarify its unique scope.

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 alternatives like get_season_context or get_player_context. It only states what the tool does, without any context on appropriate invocation scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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