ideal_weight_calculatorHealthy weight range (BMI 18.5–24.9) plus Devine, Robinson, Miller and Hamwi formula estimates, from height in cm. Runs on smart-tools.xyz.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sex | Yes | Biological sex | |
| locale | No | Language for the source_url link (default en) | |
| height_cm | Yes | Height in cm |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state that it is a pure calculation with no side effects, nor does it mention any permissions or limitations. However, for a calculator, the behavior is largely inferable, and the description at least indicates the outputs returned. The omission of the required sex input is a transparency gap.
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 first sentence is dense with useful information about the tool's outputs and is front-loaded. The second sentence ('Runs on smart-tools.xyz') is irrelevant for an agent and does not earn its place, so the description is not perfectly concise.
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?
The tool has no output schema or annotations, so the description must explain return values and inputs sufficiently. It summarizes the output types but omits the required sex parameter and does not specify output units or the effect of locale. This incompleteness could mislead an agent into calling with only height.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it mentions height in cm but omits sex (required) and locale entirely. The formulas implied by the description do not clarify parameter usage.
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 a healthy weight range (BMI 18.5–24.9) and four named formulas (Devine, Robinson, Miller, Hamwi), which distinctly sets it apart from sibling calculators like bmi_calculator or body_fat_calculator. The verb is implied by the calculator name and the output types are explicit.
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?
Usage is implied by the tool name and output description, but there are no explicit guidelines on when to choose this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or references to sibling tools for related calculators (e.g., bmi_calculator for BMI only). The description fails to mention that sex is required, which would be a key usage consideration.
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.