Search the public U.S. casino directory by name, state (two-letter code), type (commercial|tribal|racino), or rewards availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Name search | |
| type | No | casino_type: commercial | tribal | racino | |
| limit | No | ||
| state | No | Two-letter state code, e.g. NV | |
| offset | No | ||
| has_rewards | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the search scope and filters, with no mention of rate limits, authentication, pagination, or response details. This is insufficient for a search tool with no annotations.
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 a single, efficient sentence (18 words) that front-loads the purpose and lists filters. No unnecessary 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?
With no output schema and only basic parameter information, the description lacks completeness. It does not mention return format, pagination behavior, or error handling, which are important for a search tool.
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 50% (3 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaning for has_rewards but not for limit/offset. It adds marginal value beyond the schema, fitting the baseline of 3 for moderate coverage.
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 searches a public casino directory by name, state, type, or rewards availability. It distinguishes from siblings (get_casino, get_rewards_program, list_rewards_programs, player_action) by specifying the search/filter functionality.
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 lists the filterable fields, making it clear what criteria can be used. However, it does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., when to use get_casino instead), though the sibling names imply the distinction.
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.
There is some overlap between get_casino and get_rewards_program, as both return rewards program details. The player_action tool is a broad proxy that may cover actions not fully defined, potentially causing confusion.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get, list, search), but player_action deviates by using noun_verb, which is slightly inconsistent.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of querying casino and rewards information and executing player actions, not overburdened.
The set covers retrieving and searching for casinos and rewards programs, and the player_action tool covers many authenticated actions. However, it lacks update or create capabilities for the data model, which may be acceptable.
