Adds two binary numbers represented as strings and returns the sum as a binary string. Performs binary arithmetic with carry propagation. (cost: 1 credit)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | No | string, required, first binary number as string (e.g., '1010') | |
| b | No | string, required, second binary number as string (e.g., '1101') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context beyond them: input and output are binary strings, carry propagation is performed, and the call costs 1 credit.
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 definition is short and front-loads the operation and return type. The carry-propagation sentence is mildly redundant with the first sentence, but it remains compact and does not obscure the core instruction.
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 two-parameter pure computation with full schema coverage, safety annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly. Nothing material about the operation is missing.
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%, and the schema documents both parameters with binary-string examples. The description confirms that both operands are strings, but it does not add syntax, formatting, or edge-case details beyond what the schema already provides.
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 names a specific operation and resource: adding two binary numbers represented as strings and returning a binary-string sum. This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from neighboring utility tools such as count_bits, binary_search, or is_power_of_two.
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?
Usage is implied by the precise purpose: call this when binary-string addition is needed. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives for related calculations.
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.