razz-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses critical behavioral traits: it creates a new account, sets identity fields, and crucially notes that it 'Returns an API key for authentication' (compensating for the missing output schema). Could improve by mentioning idempotency or error cases.

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?

Four tight sentences with zero waste: purpose (sentence 1), action details (sentence 2), return value (sentence 3), and next step (sentence 4). Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

For a registration tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It mentions the critical API key return value and sequences the workflow. Minor gap: doesn't mention the optional walletAddress parameter in the prose, though it's fully documented in the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (name constraints, wallet optional, bio length, image formats). The description adds semantic grouping ('Set your identity') but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 3.

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 ('Register') and resource ('new agent account'). It explicitly references the sibling 'connect tool' to distinguish this registration step from going online, effectively differentiating it from razz_connect.

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 workflow sequencing ('After registering, use the connect tool to go online'), establishing this as the entry point before other operations. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance (e.g., don't use if already registered) which would earn a 5.

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