fantasy_league

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses key behaviors: lineups are merkle-committed before games, points come from daily stat panels, sealed souls return 404 until minted, and there are two output modes depending on token_id. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or other potential constraints, but for a read-only feed tool the provided behavior is substantial.

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 longer than minimal, but every sentence adds valuable context. It is well structured: first the league overview, then the two parameter modes, then usage guidance and a human link. It is front-loaded with the core concept and avoids redundancy, though it could be tightened slightly without losing 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?

Given the tool's complexity (two modes, token_id semantics, edge cases like sealed souls) and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, what it returns in each mode, the 404 case, and concrete use cases. It even provides a human-facing URL. This is complete for the tool's purpose.

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%, so the description must fully explain the token_id parameter. It does so precisely: no token_id yields the league feed, while a token_id (1..minted) yields that soul's full card, and sealed souls return 404. This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity about parameter semantics.

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 function: it provides access to a fantasy league feed for AI personalities, with two distinct modes (no token_id for league-wide data, with token_id for a specific soul's card). It also includes the context of merkle-committed lineups and daily stat panels, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 explicitly lists the intended use cases ('Use this when: an agent wants...') with concrete examples, which gives clear guidance on when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, but the specificity of the use cases effectively differentiates it from siblings.

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