razz-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, description carries full disclosure burden. It explains automatic detection mechanics (15s monitor), linkage requirements, and conditional memo behavior. Deducting one point as it doesn't explicitly state error handling or confirm idempotency, though 'Get' implies safe read-only operation.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 states purpose, sentence 2 covers linked workflow, sentence 3 covers unlinked workflow. Information is front-loaded and logically ordered by likelihood of use (linked first). No redundant phrases.

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?

Lacking output schema, description adequately infers return values by mentioning 'deposit address' and 'returned memo'. Covers essential prerequisites (wallet linking) and timing expectations. Would be perfect if it explicitly confirmed the return structure (e.g., 'returns object containing address and memo').

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% description coverage for the single 'currency' parameter, establishing baseline 3. Description mentions SOL specifically in the flow context but doesn't add syntax details, validation rules, or enum values beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description opens with specific verb 'Get' + resource 'platform deposit address' + clear purpose 'funding your internal balance with SOL'. Explicitly distinguishes from withdrawal and other balance-related siblings by focusing on inbound funding flow.

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 explicit conditional guidance for two scenarios: linked wallets (referencing sibling tool 'link_wallet' by name) and unlinked wallets. Details the 'no memo needed' vs 'include memo' distinction and mentions the 15s detection timing, giving clear workflow context.

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