flip_coinFlip a coin one or more times to produce random head-or-tails outcomes for decisions.
Flip a coin one or more times
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "flip_coin"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| times | No | Number of flips |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It merely says 'Flip a coin one or more times' without mentioning that the outcome is random, what the return format is (e.g., 'heads'/'tails'), or any side effects. The agent is left to guess the result structure.
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 that states the action and the parameter scope. There is zero wasted text, and the core information is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a trivial 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?
Given there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., results of each flip). It omits any mention of return values or randomness, leaving the agent with incomplete information to use the tool correctly. For a tool this simple, more context is still needed.
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 single parameter 'times' is fully described in the schema ('Number of flips'), covering 100% of parameters. The tool description repeats the concept ('one or more times') but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Flip a coin') and adds the scope 'one or more times', which distinguishes it from the sibling roll_dice by naming the object of the action. An agent can clearly identify what this tool does.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus roll_dice. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer from the name that this is for coins rather than dice. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing hints are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.