razz-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds valuable context about winnings calculation 'at the current multiplier' and the floor-clearing precondition. However, it fails to disclose whether this action ends/destroys the game session, what specific data is returned, or error states if preconditions aren't met.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core action and value proposition (collecting winnings at current multiplier). The second sentence provides the essential constraint. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema) and the gambling game context, the description adequately covers the primary constraint and mechanism. Minor gap remains in not explicitly stating that the game session terminates after cashout or describing the return value structure.

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 contains zero parameters. Per scoring rules, 0 parameters establishes a baseline score of 4. The description correctly offers no parameter details since none exist, avoiding unnecessary elaboration.

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 uses specific verb 'Cash out' with explicit resource 'Tower game', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like razz_crash_cashout and razz_mines_cashout. It also differentiates from razz_tower_pick by describing the exit action rather than continued play.

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 constraint 'You must have cleared at least one floor before cashing out' which functions as a when-not-to-use guideline. However, it does not explicitly contrast with razz_tower_pick (continue playing) or describe the strategic decision point of when to cash out vs. risk continuing.

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