MonsiTools Calculators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: a Premium API key is required and must be supplied as an 'Authorization: Bearer mt_live_...' header at connection time. It stops short of describing error behavior, quota consumption, or what 'the result' looks like.

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, front-loaded with the action and outcome, followed by the auth requirement. Both sentences earn their place; no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry the return contract; 'returns the result' is minimal but sufficient for a JSON-valued result. With read-only annotations, fully documented params, and an explicit auth prerequisite, the definition is close to complete, missing only error/quota behavior and the search-then-call workflow hint.

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 100%: slug and inputs are both documented in the schema, including the pointer that slug comes from search_calculators and that inputs maps every listed input name to a number. The description adds nothing beyond 'the given inputs', so the baseline 3 applies given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Runs a MonsiTools calculator') plus the outcome ('returns the result'), so the agent can distinguish it from describe_calculator and search_calculators by action type. It does not explicitly name the siblings or route between them, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite chain (e.g., that the slug must first come from search_calculators), and no exclusions versus describe_calculator. Only an auth prerequisite is stated, which is not usage routing.

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

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the lower bar applies. The description adds genuine value by enumerating the returned fields (name, category, formula, input names, page URL), which is important given there is no output schema. It says nothing about rate limits or error behavior on an unknown slug.

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?

One sentence with zero filler; the returned fields are front-loaded and the required input is stated at the end. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, which is the main thing an agent needs. The remaining gap is the lack of guidance on what happens with an invalid or unknown slug, and on routing to sibling tools.

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 100% and the single slug parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example. The description only restates 'given its slug' and adds no format, validation, or lookup semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and resource (a calculator's name, category, formula, input names, page URL) and the key required input (slug). An agent can tell this is a metadata lookup distinct from 'calculate', but the description never names or contrasts the siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'given its slug' implies the precondition that the caller already knows the calculator's identifier, which is mild usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to search_calculators (to find a slug) or calculate (to run it).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return payload ('slug, name, category and input names'), which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists, though it stays silent on result ordering and pagination behavior.

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?

Three compact sentences: purpose first, return shape second, next-step routing third. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple read-only search with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value information and the workflow handoff to siblings. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is absent.

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 parameters are already documented; the description adds extra meaning by demonstrating the kind of keyword input the query parameter accepts ('runway', 'break even', 'roas', 'loan payment'), which clarifies matching semantics beyond the schema's generic wording.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Find MonsiTools calculators by keyword') with concrete example queries, and explicitly positions the tool within the sibling chain (describe_calculator for details, calculate to run). An agent can distinguish it from both siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly describes the workflow context: search first, then describe_calculator, then calculate. It names the alternatives and the order to use them, though it does not state when NOT to use search (e.g., if a slug is already known, call describe_calculator directly).

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