Geometric Series Sum: Sum of geometric series.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | No | A to process | |
| n | No | N to process | |
| count | No | Count to process | |
| first | No | First to process | |
| ratio | No | Ratio to process |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / aAdded value: +{
+ "description": "A to process",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / countAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Count to process",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / firstAdded value: +{
+ "description": "First to process",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / nAdded value: +{
+ "description": "N to process",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / ratioAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Ratio to process",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and no behavioral disclosure at all — the description does not say what formula is applied, what happens with an infinite ratio, or what the return value looks like. The full disclosure burden is unmet.
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?
It is short, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy; the single sentence contains no actionable information beyond the title.
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?
A five-parameter math tool with no annotations, no output schema, and meaningless parameter documentation leaves an agent unable to construct a correct call. The description is wholly inadequate for the tool's complexity.
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?
Five parameters (a, n, count, first, ratio) all carry placeholder descriptions like 'A to process' and 'N to process'. Although schema coverage is reported as 100%, the text conveys no meaning, and the description adds nothing about which combination (first/ratio vs a/n) is expected.
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 merely restates the tool name ('Geometric Series Sum: Sum of geometric series') without specifying verb, output form, or scope. It does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as x402-geometric-series, x402-infinite-geometric-sum, or x402-arithmetic-series-sum.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like infinite-geometric-sum for convergent cases. The agent is left to guess whether this handles finite or infinite series.
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.