Run fantasy basketball mock drafts with noisy ADP opponents and recommender picks, then score expected categories won and rank to compare draft slots or punt builds.
Mock drafts (others by noisy ADP, me by the recommender) scored by season-level simulation: expected categories won and rank. Use to compare draft slots or punt builds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| runs | No | ||
| punts | No | ||
| teams | No | ||
| rounds | No | ||
| my_slot | No |
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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that scoring comes from season-level simulation rather than a single simulated draft, but it does not explain the 'runs' semantics, the stochastic nature of the output, or how punts are interpreted. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does. Efficient, though it could have spent those words on parameter semantics instead of the ADP/recommender parenthetical.
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?
Five parameters at zero schema coverage and no output schema means the description is the only documentation, and it documents none of the inputs. An agent cannot confidently call this tool without guessing at punts format and the meaning of runs.
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 explains none of the 5 parameters. Key ambiguities are left unresolved: what format punts takes (empty default suggests a string list, but this is never stated), what runs controls (number of mock drafts simulated?), or what units teams/rounds/my_slot use. For a zero-coverage schema this is a serious 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 states a specific verb and resource: it runs mock drafts scored by season-level simulation, returning expected categories won and rank. It explains who drafts what (others by ADP, me by the recommender). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like draft_recommend or draft_board, though the mock/compare framing implies the distinction.
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?
It says to use it 'to compare draft slots or punt builds,' which implies usage context but names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not guidance. Siblings such as draft_recommend and punt_scenarios are never referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.