Evaluate executed fantasy basketball add/drop, waiver, and trade proposals by comparing acquired versus given-up production since execution, labeling them good, neutral, bad, or too early.
Grade executed add/drop, waiver, and trade proposals by realized production since execution (acquired minus given up, in team-week SD units per category): good / neutral / bad / too early.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lookback_days | 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, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail: the metric is realized production in team-week SD units, and grades can be 'too early' when lookback is insufficient. It does not discuss permissions, caching, or output format.
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?
One dense sentence with no filler. Slightly compressed — the grading scale and metric could be split for readability — but front-loaded with the core action.
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?
Covers what is graded and how, but with no output schema and no parameter documentation, an agent lacks the return structure and the meaning of lookback_days. Adequate minimum, with clear gaps.
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 coverage is 0%, so the single lookback_days parameter (default 28) is undocumented anywhere. The description mentions 'since execution' and a 'too early' outcome but never explains that lookback_days controls the window, or its units.
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 (grade) and resource (executed add/drop, waiver, and trade proposals), and explains the grading method (acquired minus given up in team-week SD units per category). Distinguishes itself from siblings like evaluate_add_drop and evaluate_trade by grading past execution retrospectively rather than advising future moves.
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 retrospective framing ('executed', 'since execution') implies when this applies — after a move has happened — versus evaluate_* siblings which advise before. But no explicit when/when-not or alternative named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.