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 one behavioral trait—the filtering of zero balances ('Returns all non-zero balances')—but omits other important behavioral context such as authentication requirements, caching behavior, or whether the balance 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?

The description consists of two highly efficient sentences. The first establishes the core operation and scope, while the second adds critical behavioral context about the return value filtering. No words are wasted.

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 low complexity (zero parameters, no nested objects) and absence of an output schema, the description adequately compensates by specifying what the tool returns ('all non-zero balances'). However, it stops short of describing the data structure or format of the returned balances.

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 contains zero parameters. According to the baseline rules for zero-parameter tools, this earns a default score of 4. The description correctly implies no user input is needed beyond the implicit authentication context.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('internal balance'), specifying it covers 'SOL and other currencies.' This effectively distinguishes it from transactional siblings like razz_withdraw or razz_place_stake, and from profile-related siblings like razz_get_profile.

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?

While the description implies usage through the specific resource mentioned ('internal balance'), it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., whether this differs from wallet balance versus gaming balance) or any prerequisites like authentication requirements.

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