timestamp_converterConvert between a Unix timestamp and an ISO 8601 date (UTC). direction=to_date: epoch → date; to_timestamp: date → epoch. Runs on smart-tools.xyz.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | Epoch (seconds or ms) for to_date, or an ISO/date string for to_timestamp | |
| locale | No | Language for the source_url link (default en) | |
| direction | No | to_date: epoch → ISO; to_timestamp: date string → epoch. Auto-detected if omitted. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the UTC scope, the direction behavior, and that it runs on smart-tools.xyz. It does not mention auto-detection of direction or error handling, but these are minor for a simple converter. The core behavior is transparent.
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 compact, starting with the main verb and resource. The direction explanation is useful but partially redundant with the schema. The 'Runs on smart-tools.xyz' note adds a minor context but does not hurt. Overall, it is efficient, though the host info could be omitted for tighter prose.
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 conversion tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema provide enough to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks explicit mention of the return value (e.g., the converted value and source_url), but the tool's purpose is simple and the schema hints at a response. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and use it.
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 schema already covers all parameters with detailed descriptions, giving 100% coverage. The description restates the direction mapping ('epoch → date', 'date → epoch') which is already in the schema, adding no new meaning. Thus it meets the baseline but does not enhance beyond schema.
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 between a Unix timestamp and an ISO 8601 date, with an explicit verb ('Convert') and resource definition. It also specifies the direction options (to_date and to_timestamp) and the UTC context, distinguishing it from siblings like time_converter or date_difference_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 clear context on when to use the tool (for timestamp/date conversion) and explains the direction parameter, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It is evident when to use this tool among the many converters, though an explicit 'use time_converter for timezone math' would be stronger.
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.