List every casino WagerX holds forensic audit data on (40+ operators), with trust score and audit status. Use to discover coverage before calling check_casino, or for "which casinos does WagerX cover?". Takes no arguments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool lists casinos with trust score and audit status and takes no arguments. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, read-only nature, sorting, pagination, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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 two sentences that front-load the core purpose, then provide usage guidance. Every sentence is necessary and no words are wasted. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.
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?
For a simple list tool with no parameters, the description covers the basic 'what' and 'why to use it'. However, it lacks details on output ordering or sorting, and does not explain how this tool relates to sibling tools like top_casinos or new_casinos. Given the existence of these siblings, more context would improve 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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Takes no arguments.' For a zero-parameter tool, the baseline is 4, and the description meets it without needing further elaboration.
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 lists all casinos with audit data, including trust score and audit status. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('casinos WagerX holds forensic audit data on'). While it mentions check_casino as a follow-up, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like compare_casinos or top_casinos, so it scores 4 rather than 5.
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 explicit use cases: 'Use to discover coverage before calling check_casino, or for "which casinos does WagerX cover?"'. This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, preventing a score of 5.
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.