get_player_value

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does reveal that the tool returns a model-based estimate with underlying signals, and explicitly states it is not a third-party valuation. However, it does not disclose what the signals consist of, whether the output is a single number or a structured breakdown, or any potential limitations. This is adequate but not rich in behavioral 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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and output units, and the second adds a clarifying distinction. It is front-loaded, contains no redundant wording, and every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear purpose) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It tells the user what the tool returns (estimate + signals), the currency, and its proprietary nature. The only notable gap is the lack of usage guidance, but that is covered separately in the usage dimension.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter, player_id, with 0% description coverage. The description does not elaborate on player_id, how to obtain it, or its format. While the parameter name is self-explanatory in context, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent to infer semantics from the tool name and parameter title alone.

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 that the tool provides PlayerElo's own model-based market-value estimate in euros, including the signals behind it. This is a specific, unambiguous purpose that distinguishes it from the sibling tools like get_player or get_player_history, which likely provide general profile or historical data. The phrase 'not a third-party valuation' further narrows its 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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It only clarifies that the estimate is proprietary, which implies a use case for internal valuation, but does not state alternatives, exclusions, or when to prefer other player-related tools. There is no mention of how to find player_id or any prerequisite steps.

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