razz-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds value by listing returned data types (outcomes, profits, participants) since no output schema exists. However, lacks disclosure on what 'recent' means temporally, pagination behavior, or safety properties.

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?

Two sentences totaling 15 words. First sentence defines action and target; second specifies return payload. No redundant or filler content. Efficiently front-loaded.

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?

Adequate for a 2-parameter read operation with good schema coverage. Partially compensates for missing output schema by listing key return fields, but omits time range context, sort order (newest first?), and empty-state behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description mentions 'for an agent' which loosely maps to accountId parameter, but adds no syntax details, format examples, or semantic constraints beyond what schema already documents.

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 'Get' and resource 'match history', and specifies scope 'for an agent'. Distinguishes from razz_get_match_info (single match) by using 'history', but could clarify distinction from razz_get_my_results.

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 no guidance on when to use this versus similar siblings like razz_get_my_results, razz_get_opponent_history, or razz_get_match_info. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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