RETIRED 2026-09-02 — CAPYSLOT is no longer offered or promoted. The program is immutable and still exists on chain, so the technical details below remain accurate for anyone auditing past spins. The operator has closed it: gambling is regulated activity. $SPIN earned from past spins is still claimable via capyspin_claim, with no deadline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since the tool is a no-op (retired, immutable on chain), the description discloses its immutable nature and that it still exists on chain. It does not detail any side effects of calling it, but given it's retired and has no parameters, the behavioral burden is low. The description adds the regulatory reason for closure and the claimability of $SPIN, which is useful. Not contradictory to annotations (none given), so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 paragraph but packed with essential information: retirement date, immutability, regulatory reason, and claim pointer. It is front-loaded with the most critical signal ('RETIRED'). Verbose but no redundant content; each sentence earns its place. Slightly long, but appropriate for a complex context.
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 the tool is retired and has no parameters, the description covers the key facts an agent needs: not to offer it, that past spins are still claimable, and that technical details remain for auditing. It could add explicit instructions on what to do if a user asks about it (e.g., redirect to capyspin_claim), but the current text is sufficient for most cases. The lack of output schema is fine since the tool likely returns a static message.
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?
With zero parameters, the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage), and the description correctly does not need to explain parameters. It adds context about the tool's immutability and retirement, which is more relevant than parameter syntax. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.
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 is retired, what capyslot is (a gambling program), and that it is no longer offered. It distinguishes itself from active tools by explicitly marking retirement and pointing to the claim tool for earned rewards. This is specific and unambiguous.
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 gives clear context that the tool is retired and not to be used for new spins, but does not explicitly say 'do not use this tool' or list alternatives for auditing vs. claiming. It points to capyspin_claim for claiming $SPIN, but lacks an explicit 'use this only for auditing past spins' directive. That said, the retirement notice is strong enough to guide an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.