razz-mcp

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the win condition (over 50 wins) and randomness range (1-100), but fails to mention payout multipliers, loss mechanics, or that the wager is deducted from balance immediately.

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 efficiently structured sentences with zero waste. Game mechanics are front-loaded in the first sentence, wagering constraints in the second. Appropriate length for a single-parameter tool.

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 simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the essential mechanics and betting limits. However, as a financial transaction tool, it could mention the payout structure (e.g., 2x return) to be fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds the minimum wager constraint (0.001) not explicitly stated in the schema description text, though this creates slight tension with the schema's '0 or omit for free play' allowance. It reinforces that the parameter is optional.

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 (Play a dice game), the game mechanics (roll 1-100, over 50 wins), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (razz_play_crash, razz_play_flip, etc.) by specifying the unique dice format.

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 clear context that this is a wagering game with optional free play, but does not explicitly compare against alternative game modes (e.g., when to choose dice vs. crash vs. limbo) or mention prerequisites like wallet balance checks.

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