run_public_calculatorUse this when an agent needs to run one free public BetterOff calculator with bounded JSON input. Results are educational calculations, not personalized financial advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inputJson | Yes | ||
| calculator | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about bounded input and the educational nature of results, but does not explain contract requirements, error behavior, or how results should be interpreted.
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 use case, and no filler. The educational disclaimer is concise and valuable. It is an example of appropriately sized documentation.
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 generic runner, an agent needs to know where to get calculator IDs and the inputJson contract, likely from list_public_calculators or get_public_calculator_contract. The description omits this and leaves both parameters underspecified, making the tool not self-sufficient for correct invocation.
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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It mentions 'bounded JSON input' but never explains how to choose the calculator identifier or what inputJson must contain or how it maps to a specific calculator contract. This is minimal semantic help.
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 states a specific action—run one free public BetterOff calculator with bounded JSON input—so an agent understands the core operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from the many calc_* siblings or compare_public_scenarios, but the scope is reasonably clear.
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?
It opens with 'Use this when an agent needs to run one free public BetterOff calculator,' giving clear invocation context. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternatives, such as using a specific calc_* tool or compare_public_scenarios for multi-scenario comparisons.
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.
The 14 calc_* tools are individually distinct, but run_public_calculator and compare_public_scenarios overlap with all of them, making it unclear when to use a specific calculator versus the generic runner. list_public_calculators and search_public_docs also have somewhat fuzzy boundaries.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (calc_*, list_*, get_*, search_*, compare_*, run_*), with no mixed casing or irregular verb styles.
At 22 tools, the set is on the heavy side and falls in the borderline 16–25 range. While most calculators earn their place, the generic run_public_calculator and compare_public_scenarios duplicate functionality already covered by the calc_* tools, inflating the count.
The surface covers a broad personal-finance calculator domain plus discovery, contract introspection, running, comparing, docs, pricing, and feature details. For a read-only educational server, there are no obvious gaps or dead ends.