inflation_calculator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the year range but does not disclose the data source (e.g., CPI-U), calculation method, or any assumptions. For a simple read-only calculator, this is adequate but not fully transparent. Additional details on data provenance would raise the score.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core function and constraints. Every part earns its place.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is mostly complete. It specifies the year range. However, mentioning the underlying data source (e.g., CPI) or return format would improve completeness. Still, it meets the needs for a basic calculator.

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%, with each parameter having a description in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it meets the minimum but adds no extra value.

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 clearly states the verb 'calculate' and the specific resource 'inflation-adjusted value of money' with a defined year range (1913–2024). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'bmi_calculator' or 'loan_calculator'.

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?

The description implies usage for adjusting monetary values for inflation between specified years. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, the context of sibling calculators makes the purpose clear enough. Additional exclusions or alternative tool references would improve this score.

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