razz-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return values ('payout and crash point') and timing behavior ('once the round ends'), but omits critical safety information like whether this is a destructive financial transaction, error conditions, or idempotency guarantees.

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 three-sentence structure is optimally front-loaded: action definition, return behavior, and valid parameter values. Each sentence delivers distinct, non-redundant information with zero verbosity.

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 lack of output schema, the description adequately explains return values. However, for a financial gaming tool with no annotations, it should disclose prerequisites (must be actively in a round) and failure modes (cashout when not playing), which are absent.

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?

While the schema has 100% coverage for the single roomId parameter, the description adds valuable semantic context by enumerating all valid room options (__crash_lobby__, __crash_low__, etc.) and noting that the lobby is '(free)', which is not present in the schema.

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 uses specific action verbs ('Cash out') and identifies the exact resource ('current crash round') and mechanism ('at the current multiplier'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling cashout tools (razz_mines_cashout, razz_tower_cashout) by specifying 'crash round'.

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 implies usage context ('current crash round' suggests you must be actively playing), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like razz_play_crash or razz_queue_for_crash, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusion conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.