sleeper_trending_playersRetrieve players most frequently added or dropped on Sleeper in a recent time window. Set add/drop type, lookback hours, and limit to evaluate waiver wire moves.
Get players most frequently added or dropped on Sleeper over a recent time window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| lookback_hours | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already cover the safety profile. The description adds the temporal-window and add/drop focus, but doesn't mention output format, pagination, or how trends are calculated. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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 a read-only tool with optional parameters, the description plus schema constraints give enough information for an agent to make a correct call. Lack of an output schema is not a major gap since the return is intuitively a list of players, though explicit return fields would have improved completeness.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It indirectly explains the 'type' parameter ('added or dropped') and 'lookback_hours' ('recent time window'), but says nothing about 'limit'. The schema constraints provide only numeric bounds, not semantic meaning.
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 action ('Get') and a concrete resource: 'players most frequently added or dropped on Sleeper over a recent time window.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like sleeper_search_players by focusing on trending activity rather than general search.
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 about when to use the tool — to retrieve recent add/drop trends. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the use case is obvious enough that an agent won't confuse it with the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.