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"]}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool compares casinos based on WagerX audit data and lists the specific fields (trust score, test, KYC, policy, withdrawal speed, license). The behavior is that it expects between 2 and 5 casino names and provides a side-by-side comparison. However, it does not specify what happens if a name is invalid (e.g., error vs. partial results), how up-to-date the data is, or whether results are returned in a specific format. This is a minor gap, but overall the description is quite 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?
The description is two sentences long with an example call appended. It front-loads the core action ('Compare 2-5 crypto casinos side by side') and immediately specifies the data source and fields. The second sentence gives real-world query examples, and the example call provides a concrete interface. Every sentence serves a purpose: defines scope, examples, and invocation. Zero wasted words.
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 that this is a straightforward comparison tool with 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what data it compares, how many casinos, and an example call. It does not explain the output format or whether it returns a structured comparison vs. a textual answer. However, with siblings like 'check_casino' and 'list_casinos', the context is adequately set. The minimal input schema limits the need for more 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?
There is one parameter ('names') with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The description explains that 'names' is an array of casino names (2-5), provides an example call, and adds context about what the comparison will cover. The schema only defines type, min/max items, and required status. The description adds meaning by specifying that these are crypto casinos and that the data comes from WagerX audit data. The example call also demonstrates expected values. A slight deduction for not explaining that the names must match some known identifier (e.g., exact internal name vs. generic query).
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 uses specific verbs ('Compare... side by side') and identifies the resource ('WagerX audit data') and the specific fields compared (trust score, test, KYC, withdrawal speed, license). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'check_casino' (likely single casino) and 'list_casinos' (listing, not comparing). The example queries ('Duelbits vs BC.Game?') and example call further clarify the tool's unique purpose.
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 states when to use this tool: to compare 2-5 casinos side by side, with concrete example queries ('Duelbits vs BC.Game?', 'Which is safer, Stake or Rollbit?'). It also defines the range (2-5 casinos) and provides an example JSON call, which guides the agent on how to invoke it. No mention of when not to use it or alternatives, but the sibling context (e.g., 'check_casino' for single casino) is implicitly clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: bonuses, individual audits, comparisons, recent audits, full list, historical age, new entries, regulatory context, and top-ranked casinos. There is minimal overlap, and descriptions specify exact use cases for each.
All names follow a consistent snake_case style with descriptive prefixes (verbs or adjectives) followed by a resource noun (e.g., check_casino, best_bonuses). While not a uniform verb_noun pattern, the naming is predictable and readable.
Nine tools is well-scoped for a domain covering casino audits, bonuses, comparisons, regulatory info, and lists. Each tool contributes a distinct function without excessive overlap or redundancy.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of a user's needs: discovering casinos, evaluating safety via audits, comparing options, accessing recent data, and understanding regulatory context. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.