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. It discloses that tokens are sent 'from your balance' (indicating a destructive financial operation), but omits critical transaction behaviors such as irreversibility, insufficient balance errors, or whether tips generate public notifications.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence establishes the action and context, the second clarifies the mechanism (balance deduction).

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 financial mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic action but leaves gaps regarding transaction side effects, confirmation behavior, and failure modes that would help an agent invoke this safely.

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%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds context that funds come 'from your balance' (implying the source of the amount parameter), meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 sends tokens from the user's balance to another user and specifies the context (in a joined room). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from similar value-transfer siblings like `razz_rain` or `razz_withdraw`.

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?

It provides one prerequisite (must be in a room) but lacks guidance on when NOT to use this (e.g., insufficient balance) and does not mention alternatives like `razz_rain` for distributing tips to multiple users.

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