Grade finished fantasy basketball matchup forecasts and report simulator calibration: Brier score vs coin-flip baseline, reliability buckets, per-category Brier, expected vs actual categories won.
Grade finished matchup predictions and report simulator calibration: Brier score vs coin-flip baseline, reliability buckets, per-category Brier, expected vs actual categories won.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 real value by naming the computed metrics, but says nothing about data availability, timeframe, or whether predictions must already exist.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and then lists outputs. Every clause carries information, though the metric list is somewhat compressed.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the read-only nature, the description's enumeration of report contents is close to sufficient. It only lacks a note on when the required prediction data exists.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the schema has nothing to document. The description correctly implies no input is required.
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 pairs specific verbs (grade, report) with a concrete resource (finished matchup predictions and simulator calibration) and enumerates the exact metrics produced (Brier score, reliability buckets, per-category Brier). This clearly separates it from projection_calibration, though that sibling is never named explicitly.
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 word 'finished' implies it should be run after matchups complete, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to the closely related projection_calibration or grade_decisions siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.