calculateEvaluate a safe arithmetic expression. Supports +,-,*,/,**,%,sqrt,abs,round,floor,ceil,log,sin,cos,tan,pi,e.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expression | Yes | A safe arithmetic expression, e.g. '(3 + 4) * 2 / sqrt(9)' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| result | No | ||
| expression | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not restate read-only. The description adds behavioral context by noting the expression is 'safe' (implying no arbitrary code execution) and explicitly enumerating supported functions and constants, which clarifies what the tool can and cannot evaluate. This goes beyond the schema's simple example.
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, efficient sentence with a front-loaded action ('Evaluate') and a compact enumeration of supported operations. Every word contributes value, with no redundant or vague phrasing.
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 that the tool has one parameter, an output schema exists, and the readOnly annotation is provided, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the tool's domain, safe evaluation, and the full set of supported operations, so an agent can invoke it confidently without needing additional behavioral or return-value details.
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?
The schema description for the 'expression' parameter covers 100% of the parameter, providing an example. The tool description additionally itemizes accepted operators and functions (+, -, *, /, **, %, sqrt, abs, round, etc.), giving the agent a clearer understanding of valid input format and capabilities beyond the schema alone.
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 the specific verb 'evaluate' and clearly identifies the resource as an 'arithmetic expression'. It lists supported operations, making the tool's scope unambiguous and distinguishing it from siblings that deal with currency, stats, transactions, and blockchain data.
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 usage for arithmetic computation by stating 'Evaluate a safe arithmetic expression' and listing supported functions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No alternative tools are named, and no when-not-to-use guidance is given.
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.
Most tools target distinct blockchain/DeFi resources and actions. A few pairs like get_lending_rates vs get_yield_rates and get_defi_positions vs get_liquidation_risk have overlapping boundaries, but detailed descriptions and explicit redundancy notes (e.g., get_eth_balance vs get_wallet_portfolio) reduce confusion.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_block, convert_currency, decode_transaction). The only minor deviations are noun-first names like http_fetch and web_search, but the style is uniform and predictable.
At 27 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many' and feels heavy. While the breadth of DeFi and crypto features justifies some size, the number is unwieldy for an agent to scan efficiently and could be consolidated (e.g., merging balance-related tools).
The tool surface covers a wide range of blockchain data: balances, prices, TVL, yields, DEX quotes, gas, block/transaction details, approvals, and DeFi positions. Gaps include lack of wallet transaction history and NFT support, but these are beyond the server's clear focus on read-only DeFi analytics.