weight_converterConvert a value between weight units. Units: t (Tonne), kg (Kilogram), g (Gram), mg (Milligram), lb (Pound), oz (Ounce), st (Stone). 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only states that 'Calculation runs on smart-tools.xyz,' which is vague and not behavioral. It does not disclose return value format, precision/rounding behavior, or how the optional 'locale' parameter affects the result.
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, with two sentences that front-load the core action. The unit list is useful, but the appended 'Calculation runs on smart-tools.xyz' is unnecessary and lacks clarity, slightly reducing the structure quality.
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, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any explanation of the response format, the optional 'locale' parameter, and potential edge cases. Given no output schema and no annotations, a bit more detail would make it complete.
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 provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the units, which duplicates the enum values in the schema and adds no new meaning. It fails to explain the 'locale' parameter or the allowed types for 'value' beyond what the schema says.
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 starts with 'Convert a value between weight units,' which is a clear, specific verb+resource statement. It also lists all supported units, making it easy to distinguish from sibling converters like length_converter or temperature_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other unit converters. It does not mention any exclusions or contextual conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
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.