Re-anchor an ISO datetime from one IANA timezone to another. Accepts the common timezones (UTC, America/, Europe/, Asia/Kolkata, Asia/Tokyo, etc.). Returns the equivalent ISO datetime in the target timezone + the offset difference in hours.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iso | Yes | Input datetime, ISO 8601. | |
| to_tz | Yes | Target IANA timezone. | |
| from_tz | Yes | Source IANA timezone. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the return format (ISO datetime and offset difference) but does not mention error handling for invalid timezones or ISO formats, nor does it discuss limitations on timezone acceptance.
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 exceptionally concise with two sentences, each sentence serving a clear purpose (action + return value). No unnecessary words.
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 3-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main behavior well. It could mention error scenarios or handling of invalid inputs, but overall it is sufficiently 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by listing acceptable timezones (UTC, America/*, etc.), which aids parameter understanding beyond the schema's generic descriptions.
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 re-anchors an ISO datetime between IANA timezones, lists accepted common timezones, and specifies the return value. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like date_diff and list_timezones.
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 explains when to use the tool (to convert timezones) and provides examples of accepted timezones. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives, such as using date_diff for differences.
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 has a distinct purpose: currency conversion, timezone conversion, unit conversion, date difference calculation, and listing supported entities. There is no overlap, so an agent can easily choose the correct tool.
Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., convert_currency, list_timezones). The only minor deviation is 'date_diff' which uses noun_noun, but it is still clear and fits the pattern of other tools.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a unit and currency converter. It covers all necessary operations without being too sparse or overwhelming.
The tools provide full conversion capabilities (currency, timezone, unit), date difference calculation, and listing helpers for timezones and units. There are no obvious gaps for the server's stated purpose.