Fantasy Premier League MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool does but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about operational behavior.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by a structured breakdown of arguments and returns. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying parameters and outputs without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs or output format specifics. Without an output schema, the description should ideally explain return values more thoroughly, but it only states 'Detailed comparison' vaguely.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'List of player names to compare,' 'Whether to include gameweek-by-gameweek comparison'), providing context that the schema titles alone do not. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail parameter constraints like valid metric values.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Compare multiple players across various metrics.' It specifies the verb ('compare'), resource ('players'), and scope ('across various metrics'), distinguishing it from siblings like analyze_players or get_player_information by focusing on comparative analysis rather than individual player data.

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 usage with the recommendation '2-5 players recommended,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_players or search_fpl_players. It implies usage for comparative analysis but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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