Decide whether to claim, wait, add, or pass on a waived player by comparing rest-of-season gain with waiver priority and rival claim likelihood.
Rolling waivers: should we claim now (spend priority), wait for him to clear, add (free agent), or pass? Uses rest-of-season gain vs the value of our priority and which teams ahead would likely claim him.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| drop | No | ||
| player | Yes | ||
| on_waivers | 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 safe-read profile is covered. The description adds genuine analytical context (rest-of-season gain vs. priority value, competitor claim likelihood), but says nothing about output format or what an actionable decision looks like, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core decision framing, with no filler. The phrasing ('should we', 'him') is slightly informal but efficient and readable.
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?
For an analysis tool with 0% parameter coverage and no output schema, the description omits the role of drop and on_waivers and gives no sense of the returned recommendation. Purpose is covered, but parameter and output context are not.
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% for three parameters. The description implicitly touches on_waivers via 'wait for him to clear' vs 'add (free agent)', but never explains player, drop, or the boolean semantics. With no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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 decision problem: whether to claim a rolling waiver now, wait for clearance, add as a free agent, or pass. This is a clear verb+resource (waiver claim decision) distinct from a generic add/drop evaluation. It does not name a sibling tool, but the framing is specific enough to distinguish it.
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?
Usage is implied by the rolling-waiver framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to close siblings like evaluate_add_drop, free_agents, or streaming_plan. The agent must infer that this is the priority-aware waiver variant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.