razz-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses critical behavioral traits: 10-floor game length, one trap door per floor (risk), cash-out mechanics (voluntary exit), 5-minute auto-end timeout (involuntary), and 7% house edge (economic model). Comprehensive disclosure of game behavior beyond structured data.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: game initiation, mechanics, risk, exit options, sibling tool references, house edge, and timeout. No redundancy or filler. Front-loaded with core purpose ('Start a new Tower game') followed by critical behavioral constraints.

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 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides complete context for tool invocation. It explains the full game lifecycle (start → pick/cashout → termination conditions), risk profile, and economic model, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage (difficulty and wagerAmount fully documented). The description mentions 'multiplier' and wagering context which aligns with parameter purposes, but does not explicitly add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

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 tool 'Start[s] a new Tower game' with specific mechanics (climb 10 floors, picking doors) that distinguish it from sibling casino games like mines, crash, and plinko. It identifies the specific verb and resource unambiguously.

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 establishes the workflow sequence by naming sibling tools: 'After starting, use tower_pick to choose doors and tower_cashout to collect winnings.' This clearly distinguishes razz_play_tower as the initialization step versus the action tools (pick/cashout) and implies when to use each in the game lifecycle.

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