Rank fantasy basketball managers by activity and waiver-wire moves, then find ideal trade partners through complementary category fit.
League-wide intel: managers ranked by activity, most active on the waiver wire, best trade partners (activity group, then complementary category fit).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is covered. The description adds the ranking methodology (activity group, then complementary category fit), which is genuine extra context, but says nothing about return shape, size, or cost.
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 sentence, purpose front-loaded, detail relegated to a parenthetical. No filler. It could be tighter only by explicitly tying the trailing clause to the parameter.
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?
The description conveys what data comes back but omits how 'top' shapes the response and gives no sense of output structure for a tool with no output schema. Adequate for a simple read-only aggregate, but there is a clear gap around the one input.
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 single 'top' parameter has a default of 5 and 0% schema description coverage, yet the description never mentions it or explains whether it caps each list, the manager count, or the whole result. With one undocumented param, the description should have compensated and does not.
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 concretely enumerates the outputs — managers ranked by activity, waiver-wire leaders, best trade partners with the ranking logic (activity group, then complementary category fit). That is far more specific than a tautology. It doesn't, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like manager_profile or league_profile, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to reach for league_intel versus manager_profile, league_overview, or find_trades. The agent must infer the use case purely from the listed outputs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.