razz-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Successfully discloses game mechanics (ball physics, multiplier buckets) and financial traits (1% house edge). Missing explicit mention of balance mutation/financial stakes and free play capability (0 wager option).

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?

Perfectly structured and front-loaded: game definition → mechanics → risk explanation → house edge. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy in a compact description.

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?

Adequately complete for a wagering tool given no output schema exists. Covers mechanics, odds (house edge), and risk configuration. Could improve by acknowledging financial stakes (SOL wagering) and win/loss outcomes given the gambling context.

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%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds valuable context to risk_level (explaining 'tight' = frequent small wins, 'extreme' = rare big wins) beyond schema's brief descriptions. Does not add to wagerAmount semantics (misses free play mention from schema).

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?

Excellent clarity with specific verb ('Play') and resource ('Plinko'), distinguishes from siblings (dice, crash, flip, etc.) by describing unique peg-board mechanics ('drop a ball through a peg board', 'bounces left/right', 'multiplier bucket').

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 implied usage guidance by explaining risk level semantics (low/medium/high payout spreads), but lacks explicit comparison to sibling gambling tools (razz_play_dice, razz_play_crash, etc.) to help agents choose between game types.

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