time_converterConvert a value between time units. Units: µs (Microsecond), ms (Millisecond), s (Second), min (Minute), h (Hour), d (Day), wk (Week), mo (Month), yr (Year). Calculation runs on smart-tools.xyz.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Target unit id | |
| from | Yes | Source unit id | |
| value | Yes | Amount to convert | |
| locale | No | Language for source_url (en, de, es, fr, it, nl, uk) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions that calculation runs on smart-tools.xyz, but does not disclose output format, precision, handling of variable-length units (month/year), or whether the operation is read-only. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
Three sentences with no redundant phrases, front-loaded with core purpose and supported units. Every sentence earns its place; it is concise and structured effectively.
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 clarify what the tool returns (e.g., converted number) and any conversion conventions. It doesn't explicitly do so, but the simplicity of the operation partially compensates. The note about smart-tools.xyz adds little context for an agent.
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 documents each parameter. The description repeats the unit list already present as enums but adds no additional semantics about value, locale, or source_url. Baseline of 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 explicitly states 'Convert a value between time units' with a specific verb and resource, and lists all supported units (µs, ms, s, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling converters like length_converter or weight_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 description implies usage for time unit conversion but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It relies on the tool name and context, which is adequate but not explicitly stated.
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.