USE THIS to format a money amount the way a reader in a locale expects (symbol position, separators) before showing it in a price, invoice or email. e.g. 1234.5 GBP en-GB → '£1,234.50'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | The numeric amount. | |
| locale | No | BCP-47 locale (e.g. en-GB). Defaults from the currency. | |
| currency | No | ISO 4217 currency code (default GBP). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is read-only. The description adds behavioral context by specifying locale-sensitive formatting (symbol position, separators) via an example, which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not address edge cases like negative amounts or rounding.
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 extremely concise: two sentences and an example. It is front-loaded with an imperative 'USE THIS', and every sentence adds value without 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?
Although no output schema is provided, the description includes an example return value ('£1,234.50') and explains the purpose. For a formatting tool, this is reasonably complete, though it could mention handling of invalid 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds a concrete example showing how parameters combine, but this does not significantly extend the schema's detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 explicitly states 'USE THIS to format a money amount' and provides a concrete example, clearly identifying the tool's verb (format) and resource (money amount). It distinguishes itself from sibling validation tools by its unique function.
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 advises using the tool 'before showing it in a price, invoice or email', which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternative tools, though no such alternative exists among siblings.
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 specific identifier or operation (e.g., validate_iban, parse_date, is_holiday). Even similar tools like validate_isbn and validate_isbn10 are distinct by version. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (validate_xxx, parse_xxx, format_currency). The exception is 'next_holiday', which uses an adjective instead of a verb. Otherwise consistent.
With 47 tools, the set is very large. While each tool is distinct, the count exceeds the recommended range (25+ is considered too many) and may overwhelm users or agents.
Covers a wide array of international identifiers and utilities, but notable gaps exist (e.g., no Canada SIN, India PAN, Mexico CURP). The set is broad but not exhaustive for the domain of data validation.