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 | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a full list with trust score and audit status and takes no arguments, which is adequate for a read-only listing. However, it does not specify authentication requirements, return format (e.g., list of objects), or performance implications, leaving moderate gaps.
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 exceptionally concise with two sentences and 35 words. It front-loads the purpose, then immediately gives usage guidance, and ends with the parameter note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or extraneous detail.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what is listed (all casinos with trust score and audit status) and how to use it. It mentions relevant output fields, which compensates for the missing output schema. Minor omission: it could explicitly state that the output is a list of objects, but the context is sufficient.
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 coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description reinforces this with 'Takes no arguments', which adds clarity but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'every casino WagerX holds forensic audit data on (40+ operators)', specifying the output includes trust score and audit status. It differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming check_casino as a follow-up tool and implying coverage discovery, which distinguishes it from other list/filter tools.
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 usage scenarios: 'Use to discover coverage before calling check_casino' and 'for which casinos does WagerX cover?'. It notes it takes no arguments, simplifying invocation. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternatives beyond check_casino, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.