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 and succeeds: explains auto-join side effect, betting phase mechanics, multiplier progression (1.00x to 50x), loss conditions, and player limits (max 5 wagered). No contradictions with implied safety profile.

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?

Information-dense but logically structured as workflow: entry → betting → multiplier phase → cashout instruction → room constraints. Every sentence serves the agent's decision-making or operational understanding.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description comprehensively covers game mechanics, financial risks, room options, and integration with the broader crash tool suite (queue, status, cashout), making it complete for a complex stateful gambling action.

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% so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context about room semantics (__crash_lobby__ as free play vs __crash_low__ with specific SOL ranges) and reinforces the optional nature of wagerAmount (0 or omit for free play), justifying the elevated score.

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 ('Enter a crash game round') and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'crash_cashout' and 'crash_status' by explicitly stating this is the entry/betting step, not the multiplier monitoring or cashout step.

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?

Explicitly directs users to companion tools ('Use crash_status to check... then crash_cashout to lock in'), explains the ~8 second betting window constraint, and warns about the risk ('If you don't cash out before the crash, you lose your wager').

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