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 of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core mechanism (collecting winnings at current multiplier) and the prerequisite check, but omits details about game state termination, error conditions if called prematurely, or specific balance update behaviors.

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 exactly two high-value sentences. The first front-loads the primary action and outcome, while the second provides the essential constraint. No words are wasted on tautology or redundant explanation.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the business logic (winnings collection) and operational constraint. It could be improved by mentioning that this action terminates the game session, but it sufficiently describes the essential user-facing 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?

The input schema contains zero parameters, which per the rubric establishes a baseline of 4. The description correctly requires no additional parameter explanation since there are no arguments to document.

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 specific action (cash out), the target resource (current Mines game), and the outcome (collecting winnings at current multiplier). The tool name combined with the description effectively distinguishes this from sibling cashout tools like razz_tower_cashout and razz_crash_cashout.

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 a clear prerequisite constraint ('You must have revealed at least one gem before cashing out'), which establishes when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool (razz_mines_click) needed to satisfy this prerequisite or explain when to choose cashout versus continuing play.

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