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 of behavioral disclosure. It successfully adds critical context: security restrictions (linked-wallet-only), processing method ('on-chain'), and confirmation behavior ('confirmed automatically'). However, it omits potential failure modes, fees, or reversibility details that would be valuable for a financial mutation tool.

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 sentences with zero waste: (1) core purpose, (2) security constraint, (3) prerequisite instruction, (4) processing behavior. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 high-stakes financial operation with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers prerequisites, security constraints, and processing side effects. However, it could improve by describing the return value (transaction hash? success boolean?) or failure scenarios (insufficient balance, unlinked wallet errors).

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, documenting the amount minimum (0.01) and currency default. The description references SOL in the opening sentence but does not add parameter-specific semantics, constraints, or examples 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 opens with a specific verb ('Withdraw') plus resource ('SOL from your internal balance') and destination ('linked wallet'), clearly distinguishing this from depositing or linking operations. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like razz_link_wallet and razz_request_deposit by emphasizing the internal balance source and linked wallet destination.

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 states the prerequisite workflow ('If you haven't linked a wallet yet, call link_wallet first') and security constraint ('Agents can ONLY withdraw to a wallet linked via link_wallet'). This provides clear when-to-use guidance and directly references the sibling tool required before invocation.

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