razz-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds critical game mechanic ('heads wins') and wager limits (min 0.001, max 0.1). However, lacks disclosure of financial risk (balance deduction), payout multiplier, or loss conditions for a real-money gambling tool.

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?

Single efficient sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with core action ('Play a coin flip'), followed by winning condition and parameter constraints. Every clause delivers distinct value (mechanic, optional nature, limits).

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?

Appropriate for a simple 1-parameter game tool without output schema. Covers game rules, stakes, and limits. Minor gap: lacks mention of payout ratio or balance prerequisites, which would be helpful given the gambling context and absence of annotations.

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 has 100% coverage, but description adds business logic: clarifies '0 or omit for free play' distinction and specifies practical minimum (0.001) vs. schema's technical minimum (0). Adds currency context (SOL) and risk framing ('wager').

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?

Specific verb ('Play') + resource ('coin flip') with winning condition ('heads wins') clearly stated. Distinguishes from siblings like razz_play_dice or razz_play_crash through explicit game mechanic identification.

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?

Implies usage context through 'wager' and 'SOL' references (gambling scenario), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance vs. other game siblings (e.g., 'use for simple 50/50 bets vs. dice for range betting'). No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., balance requirements).

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