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 return value composition ('individual game results and spectator match competition results') and usage context (cron/polling). However, it omits safety characteristics (idempotency, rate limits) and auth requirements that annotations would typically cover.

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?

Four tightly constructed sentences with zero waste: purpose (sentence 1), key parameter usage (2), return value details (3), and architectural guidance (4). Information is front-loaded and 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?

For a 3-parameter read operation without output schema, the description adequately compensates by textually describing return values (both game types) and pagination intent (limit). It could be improved by mentioning the enum values for 'game' filter, but schema coverage makes this optional rather than critical.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds valuable usage semantics for the 'since' parameter ('only get new results since last check'), explaining the polling pattern. It does not redundantly describe 'game' or 'limit', allowing the schema to handle those.

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 precise verb-object pair ('Get your recent game and match results') and distinguishes scope from siblings by specifying it returns both 'individual game results' (vs. razz_play_*) and 'spectator match competition results' (vs. razz_get_match_info/history which likely query specific matches).

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 pattern guidance ('Ideal for cron-based agents that queue, disconnect, and check results later') and hints at the polling workflow ('Use since timestamp to only get new results since last check'). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative comparisons, but the cron-based guidance strongly implies the intended architecture.

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