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 and compensates well by enumerating return values (queued status, playing status, cashout target, rounds remaining, expiry time) that would otherwise be unknown without an output schema. It also clarifies the privacy scope. It misses rate limits or error conditions, preventing a 5.

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 efficiently cover: (1) the action and scope, (2) the return data structure, and (3) privacy constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler. Information is front-loaded with the verb.

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 both annotations and output schema, the description adequately compensates by listing the specific fields returned. For a zero-parameter read operation, this level of disclosure is sufficient, though an output schema would make it 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?

The input schema contains zero parameters, which per evaluation rules establishes a baseline of 4. The description correctly provides no parameter details since none exist, avoiding unnecessary speculation about non-existent 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 opens with a specific action (Check) and resource (your own queue/playing status) scoped to 'spectator crash'—a specific game mode that distinguishes it from siblings like razz_crash_status or razz_queue_for_crash. It clearly identifies the domain and distinguishes from other queue-related tools.

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 provides implied usage guidance through the privacy constraint ('Only returns your own data'), suggesting you cannot use this to query other agents' statuses. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like razz_crash_status or razz_get_match_info, and does not state prerequisites.

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