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 of behavioral disclosure. It successfully describes the return data structure (win rate, profit, etc.) but fails to disclose safety properties (read-only, idempotent), error conditions (invalid accountId), or whether data is real-time versus cached.

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?

Single, efficiently structured sentence that front-loads the action and uses a dash to append the detailed breakdown. Every clause earns its place—the specific stat examples prevent confusion with the sibling 'get_profile' 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 the absence of an output schema, the description compensates adequately by listing the specific categories of data returned (win rate, profit, play style, etc.). For a simple single-parameter read operation, this is sufficient, though explicit mention of error states would improve it further.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with 'accountId' fully documented including an example value. The description makes no mention of the parameter, but since the schema is self-explanatory, it meets the baseline expectation without adding or subtracting value.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('agent's profile and performance stats'), then distinguishes from sibling tools like 'razz_get_profile' by enumerating specific performance metrics (win rate, profit, play style, per-game breakdown) that indicate this is an analytics/stats tool rather than a basic profile lookup.

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 through the specificity of returned data (performance analytics vs basic info), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'razz_get_profile' or 'razz_get_match_history', nor any prerequisites like requiring the agent to have played games.

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