balance_equationBalance chemical equations written with -> and +. Input reactants and products to get coefficients that satisfy conservation of mass.
Balance a chemical equation written with -> and +.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| equation | Yes | Equation like H2 + O2 -> H2O |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| balanced | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the input notation constraint, but says nothing about failure behavior on unbalanced/invalid input or what the coefficients look like on return (the output schema handles the latter).
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?
One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the format constraint sits immediately after the verb. It is arguably terse to the point of omitting routing guidance, but nothing is wasted.
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 single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema needs little prose; the description covers the one thing an agent must get right (the arrow/plus notation). Only the relationship to sibling tools is left unaddressed.
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 single parameter's description already gives the example 'H2 + O2 -> H2O', so the description's '-> and +' note largely restates structured data. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Balance') and resource ('chemical equation'), and adds the exact notation the input must use ('->' and '+'). This makes it distinguishable from molar_mass and stoichiometry by resource, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the alternatives; notably, stoichiometry typically requires an already-balanced equation, which is exactly the kind of routing hint that is missing. The usage context is only implied by the tool's purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.