number_baseConvert an integer between bases 2–36 (binary, octal, decimal, hex and more), exact for 64-bit values via BigInt. Runs on smart-tools.xyz.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | The integer to convert (may use 0x/0b/0o prefix, spaces or _ as separators) | |
| locale | No | Language for the source_url link (default en) | |
| to_base | No | Base to convert to, 2–36 | |
| from_base | Yes | Base of the input, 2–36 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds value by stating 'exact for 64-bit values via BigInt' and limiting to integers. However, it does not disclose error handling, return format, or other behavioral details that might be expected from a conversion tool.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence 'Runs on smart-tools.xyz' is unnecessary filler but does not significantly detract. Overall, it is well-structured for a simple tool.
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 description explains inputs (integer, bases 2–36) and precision (BigInt) but does not describe the output format or return value. Since no output schema exists, this is a notable gap. It is adequate but incomplete for a converter without an output schema.
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% for all parameters, and each parameter has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 converts an integer between bases 2–36, with specific examples (binary, octal, decimal, hex). This distinguishes it from sibling converter tools like angle_converter or area_converter.
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 intended use is clear: convert integers between base systems. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, but given the distinct purpose, context is sufficient. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the tool's scope is well-defined.
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.