DECIDE. Rank named options against weighted criteria and return the winner, full ranking, per-criterion breakdowns, methodology, weights, and an explanation. Provide options, criteria [{name, weight, direction}], and a scores matrix. method: weighted_sum (default) | weighted_product | topsis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| method | No | ||
| scores | Yes | ||
| options | Yes | ||
| criteria | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output contents (winner, full ranking, per-criterion breakdowns, methodology, weights, explanation), which is helpful. However, it omits behavior around edge cases, invalid input, tie handling, or whether the operation is purely computational, leaving some uncertainty.
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 dense sentence with no redundant filler; every clause adds information. The 'DECIDE.' prefix and long list of return items could be more structured, but overall it is concise and front-loaded.
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?
This is a complex tool with nested objects, no output schema, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage. The description lists return fields but does not specify the scores matrix format, options type, or the semantics of criteria weight and direction. It is insufficient for an agent to reliably construct valid inputs.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by defining criteria as [{name, weight, direction}] and listing method enum values. Still, it does not explain the expected shape of the scores matrix or the format of options, which are required parameters. Partial compensation only.
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 ranks named options against weighted criteria and returns winner, ranking, breakdowns, methodology, weights, and explanation. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like decide_compare_two and decide_score, which focus on narrower functions.
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 what inputs to provide (options, criteria structure, scores matrix) and lists method choices with a default. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings like decide_sensitivity or decide_compare_two, nor when to choose each method. Usage guidance is mostly implied.
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 have clear, distinct purposes across three namespaces (calc_, decide_, sim_) plus composites. Some conceptual overlap exists (e.g., decide_sensitivity vs. sim_sensitivity, decide_score vs. decide), but descriptions clarify the boundaries well.
Names follow a consistent snake_case convention with a namespace prefix (calc_, decide_, sim_) and a descriptive verb_noun structure. Even composite tools and utilities like health_check and list_capabilities fit the pattern.
24 tools is on the heavier side, but it's justified for a meta-server exposing three distinct engines plus cross-domain composites. The count is appropriately scoped for the breadth of capabilities advertised.
The set covers all core domains with discovery (list_capabilities, *_list_*), health_check, and composite tools linking simulation to decision and valuation. Minor gaps include lack of a template management tool, but sim_run accepts free-form models, mitigating this.