list_units
List all supported units grouped by category. Use this when you're not sure what unit names the converter accepts.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
List all supported units grouped by category. Use this when you're not sure what unit names the converter accepts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, but the description adequately implies a safe read-only operation. It doesn't elaborate on return format or limitations, but for a simple listing tool the disclosure is sufficient.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded, with no extraneous information. Every word adds value.
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?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward task, the description fully covers purpose and usage context. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.
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?
No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description need not add parameter details; the note about grouping by category hints at output structure but not required for parameters.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'all supported units grouped by category', clearly distinguishing it from conversion and timezone tools.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when you're not sure what unit names the converter accepts', providing clear context and implicitly guiding away from alternative tools.
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.