one-rep-maxEstimate 1RM from a submaximal set via Epley, Brzycki, Lombardi, Wathan, O'Conner, and Mayhew; returns a %1RM load chart.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reps | Yes | ||
| weight | Yes | ||
| methods | No | all |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | ||
| consensus | Yes | ||
| percent_table | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying the estimation formulas (Epley, Brzycki, etc.) and the output type (%1RM load chart), which goes beyond what annotations convey. No contradiction.
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 a single sentence front-loaded with the key action, listing formulas efficiently. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
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 covers the core estimation and output but lacks parameter details (especially 'methods') and usage guidance. Given the complexity (multiple formulas, nested object), more context is needed for full completeness.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions 'submaximal set' implying weight and reps but does not describe the 'methods' parameter nor clarify the weight object structure (value and unit). The parameter semantics are largely unexplained.
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 it estimates one-rep max from a submaximal set using six named formulas and returns a %1RM load chart. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'tdee' or 'body-fat'.
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 this tool is for estimating 1RM using submaximal weights, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'powerlifting-attempts'). No exclusions or context for tool selection is provided.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct fitness metric or calculation method, e.g., TDEE via formula vs. data, body fat via different protocols, strength, muscle mass, etc. There is no overlap that would confuse an agent.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase-with-hyphens pattern (e.g., adaptive-tdee, one-rep-max, powerlifting-attempts). The naming clearly conveys the purpose without mixing styles.
10 tools cover a comprehensive set of fitness calculations without being excessive. Each tool earns its place, and the number is well-scoped for the domain.
The tool surface covers major fitness estimation needs: TDEE (two methods), body fat, FFMI, macros, muscle potential, strength (1RM, attempts), and sarcopenia screening. No obvious gaps for calculation-oriented fitness tools.