Calculate Return on Investment (ROI).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cost | Yes | Cost of investment | |
| gain | Yes | Gain from investment |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cost | Yes | ||
| gain | Yes | ||
| net_profit | Yes | ||
| roi_percent | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose the ROI formula, edge cases (e.g., zero cost), or return format (e.g., decimal or percentage). Without annotations, the description should provide more behavioral details.
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, which is concise but overly minimal. It could include more useful information without becoming verbose.
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 output schema exists, mitigating the need to explain return values, but the description lacks context about typical usage or formula. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 parameter descriptions, and the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Score is baseline 3.
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 the verb 'Calculate' and the resource 'Return on Investment (ROI)', making the purpose clear and distinct from sibling tools that perform different calculations.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like simple_interest or compound_interest, nor are there prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
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.
