razz-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully describes conditional behavior (returns data 'when a round is active' and includes 'live crash state'), which hints at state-dependent responses. However, it omits other critical behavioral traits like read-only safety, idempotency, potential rate limits, or error states.

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 efficient sentences with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get current match info'), immediately followed by the resource type and specific data fields, then concludes with conditional return behavior. Every clause 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates well by listing key return fields: participants, staking pool, status, crash state (phase, multiplier), and timing data (next round time). For a single-parameter read operation, this provides adequate completeness, though it could specify the data structure format (object vs array).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage (roomId fully documented), the baseline is 3. The main description adds domain context by specifying this is for 'spectator/crash room,' which helps clarify the expected roomId type, but does not elaborate on format, validation rules, or examples beyond the schema's 'defaults to current room' note.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'current match info' specifically for 'spectator/crash room' contexts, distinguishing it from other game modes like hexwar or mines in the sibling list. It enumerates specific data points returned (participants, staking pool, crash state, etc.), providing concrete scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling tool `razz_crash_status`.

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 restricts usage context to 'spectator/crash room,' implying when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., for active player vs spectator) and fails to name alternatives like `razz_crash_status` or clarify when to prefer this tool over more lightweight status checks.

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