fuel_cost_calculatorFuel needed and trip cost. system=metric: distance km, consumption L/100km. system=imperial: distance miles, consumption mpg. Runs on smart-tools.xyz.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | Language for the source_url link (default en) | |
| system | No | Unit system (default metric) | |
| distance | Yes | Trip distance | |
| fuel_price | Yes | Price per litre or per gallon | |
| consumption | Yes | L/100km (metric) or mpg (imperial) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool outputs 'fuel needed and trip cost' and mentions it 'Runs on smart-tools.xyz,' giving some external context. However, it does not describe the return format, potential network behavior, edge cases, or what happens with invalid inputs.
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 brief and front-loaded with purpose. The unit-system explanation is directly useful, though the final phrase 'Runs on smart-tools.xyz' is somewhat extraneous and not clearly beneficial to an agent.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It states the outputs at a high level ('Fuel needed and trip cost') but does not mention the optional 'locale' parameter or the 'source_url' link it controls, nor any defaults or calculation formulas. Acceptable for a simple tool, but with gaps.
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 input schema already covers all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly mapping the 'system' parameter to concrete units for distance, consumption, and price, clarifying how metric versus imperial affects parameter interpretation beyond the schema descriptions.
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 opens with 'Fuel needed and trip cost,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose as calculating fuel consumption and associated costs. It is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling calculators like electricity_cost_calculator or tip_calculator.
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 explicit guidance on how the 'system' parameter changes unit interpretation ('system=metric: distance km, consumption L/100km; system=imperial: distance miles, consumption mpg'). It implies when to use the tool (when a fuel cost estimate is needed) but does not mention alternatives or exclusions.
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.