Sleeper matchups

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by noting points are 'current' and starters are 'resolved,' implying a live snapshot, but it does not disclose defaults or edge-case behavior around the optional week parameter.

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 compact sentence front-loads the core purpose and then lists exactly what data will be returned. There is no filler, redundant phrasing, or repetition of structured schema information.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema. The description adequately conveys the returned matchups content, but it omits the default behavior for the optional week parameter, which is a minor completeness gap.

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 only 50%: league_id is described, but week is not semantically explained beyond numeric bounds. The description refers to 'one league week' but does not clarify the default when week is omitted or the exact meaning/format of the week value, so it 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('one league week's matchups') and enumerates the included data: resolved starters, bench players, lineup slots, and current points. This makes its purpose clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sleeper_league_overview or sleeper_all_rosters.

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 description provides clear context for when to use it: for weekly matchups with lineup and points detail. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can infer the right situation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.