sports_board

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the tool as FREE, states that the off-season leagues report themselves dormant rather than serving frozen numbers, and says every response includes an out-of-sample calibration verdict. It leaves rate limits, authorization, and failure modes unspecified, which keeps it shy of a 5.

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 definition is compact (about 115 words), front-loaded with the core purpose, and organized with a distinct 'Use this when' paragraph. Only 'provable, not vibes' borders on fluff, though it does earn some value by restating the on-chain provenance claim.

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 a no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by enumerating what returned content looks like (players, forecast context, grades, headshots, calibration verdict). It does not describe response shape or pagination, and the 'limit' parameter remains opaque, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must encode parameter meaning. It does for 'league' via examples ('hot in MLB') and league-specific behavior, but 'limit' is never mentioned, leaving its bounds and effect entirely implied. The partial compensation for the parameter that actually concerns the table yields a 3.

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 resource and action: 'Daily sports movers board — hot, high-performing players per live league' with forecast context, Heat/Form grades, and headshots. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling tools (cards, games/tech) and from the paid /api/v1/sports/forecast endpoint that the description names explicitly.

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?

A literal 'Use this when' block lists three triggers: hot-player queries ('who's hot in MLB'), fetching player ids for the paid forecast endpoint, and fantasy-adjacent context. It does not name alternative sibling tools or give any explicit when-not-to-use rule, so it is clear context but not the spread-sheet exclusions that would earn a 5.

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