convert_to_base_units

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The openWorldHint annotation is present, but the description doesn't contradict it and honestly describes a pure conversion operation without side effects. However, it doesn't disclose return format, precision/rounding behavior, or how token decimals are resolved beyond what the schema already states. With annotations lowering the bar, this is adequate but not rich.

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 with only 16 words, front-loading the key verb and outcome. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the simple single-operation nature, rich schema coverage, and lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently states the operation and target unit for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It could disambiguate from the near-duplicate singular sibling name, but this is a minor gap for such a straightforward conversion utility.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters (amount, chainId, tokenAddress) are already well-documented. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond the overall conversion direction, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('convert') and identifies the resource ('token amount') and transformation direction ('human-readable units to its smallest unit (e.g., wei)'). This clearly states what the tool does, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool convert_from_base_units or the singular convert_to_base_unit variants, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the reverse operation (convert_from_base_units) or other conversion utilities. The context (schema and sibling names) implies it is for converting to base units before on-chain actions, but the description itself provides no explicit usage context, exclusions, or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.