home_battery_size_calculatorHome Battery Backup Size Calculator — Size a home backup battery. Enter your essential load in kW and hours of backup to get the kWh needed, how many battery units, and runtime at each load.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| backupHours | Yes | ||
| essentialLoadKW | Yes | ||
| unitCapacityKWh | Yes | ||
| depthOfDischarge | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states the tool takes inputs and returns kWh needed, number of battery units, and runtime, but it does not explain underlying assumptions, formula behavior, or edge cases like how depthOfDischarge affects results. This is adequate for a simple calculator but lacks deeper behavioral clarity.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence that briefly states the purpose and key inputs/outputs. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or 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 the tool's low complexity, the description covers the main purpose and outputs, and the schema provides ranges for all parameters. However, it omits important context about depthOfDischarge and unitCapacityKWh, and with no output schema, the description's output list ('runtime at each load') is somewhat vague. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies essentialLoadKW ('essential load in kW') and backupHours ('hours of backup'), but it does not explain depthOfDischarge or unitCapacityKWh, leaving half of the parameters underspecified. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds little beyond synonyms for two inputs.
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 a specific verb 'Size' with a clear resource ('home backup battery') and lists the core inputs and outputs. It differentiates itself from other calculator siblings by focusing on backup battery sizing based on essential load and backup hours.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: when you need to size a home backup battery from essential load and backup duration. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use solar_system_size_calculator or other energy-related calculators.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many calculators occupy overlapping conceptual spaces, such as 'ai_roi_calculator' vs 'ai_automation_payback_calculator' and 'llm_self_host_vs_api_calculator' vs 'ai_build_vs_buy_calculator'. The boundaries between debt payoff, savings goal, and drawdown tools are also fuzzy, making it easy for an agent to select the wrong tool despite detailed descriptions.
Every tool follows the same <topic>_calculator pattern with lowercase snake_case, making the naming highly predictable and consistent. Even acronyms and numbers fit the pattern, so there is no mixing of conventions.
122 tools is an extreme number for a single MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold for a severe mismatch. The tools span unrelated domains like AI costs, pet food, concrete, pizza dough, and turkey cooking, creating an unfocused kitchen-sink surface that overwhelms an agent's selection process.
The set covers many common calculator categories such as finance, construction, health, and AI costs, but several staple calculators are missing (e.g., BMI, tip, discount, simple interest, currency conversion). The AI cost cluster is over-saturated while other everyday calculations are absent, leaving minor but noticeable gaps.