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 delivers substantial behavioral context: 1% house edge, 5-minute auto-timeout, grid dimensions (5x5), and the gem/mine reveal mechanics. It could be improved by clarifying what happens when a mine is hit (instant loss vs. continue).

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 is optimally structured with five dense sentences: game definition, workflow navigation, risk mechanics, economic disclosure, and timeout constraint. Every sentence delivers distinct, non-redundant information without verbosity.

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 this is a game initiation tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers game mechanics, economic model (house edge), temporal constraints (5-minute limit), workflow integration with sibling tools, and betting parameters (SOL wagering with free play option).

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?

While the schema has 100% coverage (baseline 3), the description adds valuable semantic context beyond the schema: it explains the risk/reward curve for mine_count ('More mines = higher multipliers... but more risk'), helping the agent understand the gameplay implications of the parameter values.

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 the specific action 'Start a new Mines game' and clearly identifies the resource (5x5 grid with gems/mines). It distinguishes itself from siblings like razz_play_crash or razz_play_dice by explicitly naming the specific follow-up tools (mines_click, mines_cashout) required to complete the game workflow.

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 clear workflow guidance ('After starting, use mines_click... and mines_cashout'), establishing the correct sequence of operations. It explains the risk/reward tradeoff to inform parameter selection. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose Mines over sibling gambling games (e.g., vs. razz_play_crash or razz_play_plinko).

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