razz-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Critically discloses side effect: 'If you're not in the specified room, this will auto-join it so you receive live ticks.' Also notes that __crash_lobby__ is free (implying cost considerations for others). Missing error handling or rate limit details, but covers the essential behavioral quirk.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with purpose ('Check the current crash round state'), followed by usage context, then behavioral details and parameter values. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but description partially compensates by listing the key state fields returned (phase, multiplier, players). Covers auto-join behavior and valid inputs. Would benefit from explicit return value structure or example, but adequate for a single-parameter state-query 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?

Despite 100% schema coverage (baseline 3), description adds substantial value by enumerating valid room IDs: '__crash_lobby__ (free), __crash_low__, __crash_mid__, __crash_high__'. The '(free)' annotation adds semantic meaning about room selection criteria beyond the schema's generic 'Crash room ID' description.

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?

States specific verb (Check) + resource (crash round state) + specific attributes (phase, multiplier, players). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like razz_play_crash and razz_crash_cashout by focusing on state observation rather than action.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this after play_crash to decide when to cash out.' Provides clear sequencing context. Lists available rooms to guide parameter selection. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance (e.g., if already cashed out), but the temporal guidance is strong.

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