razz-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It compensates well by detailing the return data structure (phase enum values, timing, player count) and scope (all rooms), though it doesn't specify cache behavior or rate limits.

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: sentence 1 defines action, sentence 2 details return values with specific enum examples, sentence 3 provides usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and dense.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately documents the return structure (phases, timing, player counts). For a zero-parameter monitoring tool, this level of detail is complete.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, triggering the baseline score of 4. The description correctly requires no additional parameter explanation since the tool takes no inputs.

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 verb 'Get' with resource 'crash rooms' and scope 'all'. It clearly distinguishes this monitoring tool from action-oriented siblings like razz_play_crash and razz_crash_cashout by focusing on state retrieval rather than gameplay actions.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to find rooms with open betting or check when the next round starts.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools to avoid, it clearly signals this is for monitoring/listing purposes versus playing.

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