split_billEven split with tip, rounded so nobody argues. Splits a bill evenly across people with an optional tip, and shows the clean rounded amount plus who covers the remainder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tip | No | Tip (%) | |
| total | No | Bill total | |
| people | No | People |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the primary behavioral note is safety. Description adds useful behavioral context: rounding mechanics and remainder coverage, which goes beyond annotations.
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, no wasted words. Information is front-loaded and each sentence 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?
For a simple three-parameter calculation tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains purpose, inputs, and expected outputs (rounded amount and remainder). No gaps.
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?
All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. Description adds extra meaning about rounding and remainder handling, improving clarity.
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?
Description clearly states it splits a bill evenly with an optional tip, produces rounded amounts, and identifies who covers the remainder. The tool is distinct from sibling financial calculators, establishing a specific purpose.
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?
Description implies use for equitable bill splitting without arguments, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use, nor compare to alternatives among siblings. However, context is clear.
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.