crypto-casinos

Compare casinos

compare_casinos

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare 2-5 crypto casinos side by side on WagerX audit data: trust score, latest real-money live test, KYC policy, withdrawal speed, license. Use for "Duelbits vs BC.Game?", "Which is safer, Stake or Rollbit?", "bspin or Bitsler for fast payouts?". Example call: {"names": ["Duelbits", "Stake"]}.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "names": "<names>"
    },
    "name": "compare_casinos"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`names`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by naming the data dimensions returned (trust score, live test, KYC, withdrawal speed, license), which the annotations do not convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the comparison scope and data dimensions before the query examples, with no filler sentences. The three example queries are slightly redundant but each targets a distinct intent, so they largely earn their place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only comparison tool with no output schema, the description discloses what is compared and how to structure the single required parameter. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to build a valid request.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it states the 2-5 cardinality bound and supplies an inline example call ({names: [Duelbits, Stake]}) that shows the exact array-of-name-strings shape. It doesn't clarify name-matching tolerance or what happens with unknown casino names, keeping it from a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (compare) plus resource (crypto casinos) and enumerates exactly what is compared: trust score, live test, KYC policy, withdrawal speed, license. This distinguishes it cleanly from sibling check_casino (single-casino lookup) and list_casinos.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Three concrete trigger phrasings ("Duelbits vs BC.Game?", "Which is safer...", "or Bitsler for fast payouts?") make the use case unambiguous and grounded in real user intent. It doesn't explicitly name a fallback tool for single-casino queries or handle the too-few/too-many names case, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All crypto-casinos tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?