discount_calculatorFinal price after one or two successive discounts, plus amount saved. Runs on smart-tools.xyz.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| price | Yes | Original price | |
| locale | No | Language for the source_url link (default en) | |
| discount | Yes | Discount, percent | |
| second_discount | No | Optional second discount applied to the already-reduced price, percent |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It states the core computation (final price and savings) and the successive discount behavior, but it does not disclose potential output format details, rounding, or the meaning of the 'source_url' referenced in the locale parameter. The 'Runs on smart-tools.xyz' line adds no behavioral insight.
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 short and front-loaded with the essential purpose. However, the final clause 'Runs on smart-tools.xyz' is unnecessary and not action-relevant for an agent, making it a minor waste.
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 calculator, the description adequately states the main output. However, the absence of an output schema and the unclear 'source_url' reference in the locale schema leave some ambiguity about the full response. The description is sufficient for basic invocation 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 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter (price, discount, second_discount, locale). The description adds little beyond reinforcing the 'successive' nature of discounts, which the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 computes the final price after one or two successive discounts and the amount saved. This specific output distinguishes it from sibling tools like percentage_calculator or margin_calculator, even though the verb is implied rather than explicitly stated.
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 calculating discounted final prices, and the mention of 'one or two successive discounts' gives some context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar calculators (e.g., percentage_calculator) or provide exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is the best choice.
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 are clearly distinct, but there are notable overlaps. 'hash_generator' and 'file_hash' effectively do the same thing (SHA hashing of text), and several CSV/TSV converters (csv_to_json, csv_to_sql, table_to_csv, markdown_table) have similar input handling, though outputs differ. The sheer number of converters is clear, but these near-duplicates create some ambiguity.
Names follow a generally consistent pattern: lowercase with underscores, often ending in 'converter', 'calculator', or 'generator'. A few names like 'base64', 'lorem_ipsum', and 'transliteration' deviate from the suffix pattern, but the naming style is uniform and predictable overall.
With 73 tools, this server is far over the typical well-scoped range. While the broad utility-toolkit purpose might justify a larger set, 73 is unwieldy and pushes well into 'too many' territory, making it harder for an agent to select the right tool efficiently.
The server covers a remarkably wide range of common utilities: unit conversions, calculators, text transformations, development helpers (JSON, regex, JWT, subnet), and generators. Minor gaps exist (e.g., currency converter, time zone converter), but for a general-purpose toolkit, it is largely comprehensive.