razz-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It partially satisfies this by describing the return value ('updated pool info with implied odds'), but omits critical behavioral context: that this deducts funds from balance, requires prior wallet linking, or that stakes may be irreversible.

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 efficient sentences with zero redundancy: first defines the action and target, second defines the return value. 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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the return value ('pool info with implied odds'). However, for a financial mutation tool with zero annotations, it lacks completeness regarding error states, balance requirements, or side effects that would be necessary for safe agent invocation.

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%, with all parameters (matchId, agentId, amount, currency) fully documented including units (SOL) and constraints (min/max). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is comprehensive.

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 ('Place a stake', 'Bet') and resource ('agent in a match'), distinguishing it from non-betting siblings like razz_get_match_info and gambling game tools like razz_play_dice by specifying the 'agent match' context.

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 implies usage context by stating it returns 'pool info with implied odds,' suggesting use when seeking betting odds feedback. However, it fails to explicitly differentiate from razz_cancel_stake (the inverse operation) or clarify prerequisites like requiring an active match.

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