Run a calculation and get results + prefilled URL
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inputs | Yes | Calculator input values | |
| strict | No | If true, reject invalid or unknown input fields instead of dropping them | |
| calculator | Yes | Calculator slug |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the core action and outputs (results and URL), but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how strict mode affects execution, error handling, or any side effects. The minimal transparency is insufficient for a tool with this complexity.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and output. It is concise and every word contributes meaning, avoiding unnecessary details. However, it is under-specified, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
Without annotations or an output schema, and with only a one-sentence description, the tool's return format, error behavior, and usage context are unclear. The presence of multiple similar sibling tools (calculate_cas, calculate_cas_headless, generate_prefilled_url) further highlights the missing guidance on when this tool is appropriate.
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% with descriptions for all three parameters (calculator slug, inputs, strict), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'prefilled URL' hints that the inputs parameter also influences URL generation, adding slight context beyond the schema, but this is not enough to raise the score above the baseline.
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's action ('Run a calculation') and its distinctive output ('results + prefilled URL'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the prefilled URL, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from calculate_cas or generate_prefilled_url, so it's clear but not fully differentiating.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_cas or generate_prefilled_url. The mention of 'prefilled URL' implies a use case, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative context, leaving the agent without decision support.
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.
calculate_cas and calculate_cas_headless are explicitly aliases, creating two tools for the same purpose. Also, calculate and generate_prefilled_url both produce prefilled URLs, so their boundaries are not fully distinct.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (calculate, create_session, get_session_state, list_calculators). The main deviation is calculate_cas_headless, which still fits the pattern but is an awkward alias name.
The 10-tool count is reasonable for a calculator service with session management. However, the alias tool is redundant and could be removed without losing functionality.
The tool set covers listing calculators, getting schemas, running calculations (standard and CAS), managing sessions, and generating URLs. Minor gaps like a dedicated way to delete sessions are addressed by close_session, so coverage is adequate.