financeskills

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.1
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are organized by skill prefix, which helps distinguish across domains. Within a skill, individual tools are specialized and descriptions clarify intent. However, the large number of tools increases the chance of misselection, especially for similar-sounding tools like 'zscore_anomalies' and 'rolling_deviation_anomalies'.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tools follow a consistent 'skill__tool_name' pattern using snake_case, which is predictable. Some tool names are vaguely named (e.g., 'label' in variance_analysis) or repeat the skill name (e.g., 'buffer_check'), but overall the pattern is maintained across all 178 tools.
Tool Count2/5
178 tools is excessive for a single MCP server, even one covering multiple finance domains. This makes it difficult for an agent to efficiently navigate and select the right tool. The server would benefit from being split into smaller, domain-specific servers (e.g., 5-15 tools per domain).
Completeness4/5
The server covers an impressively broad range of finance and accounting topics, from anomaly detection to working capital analysis. Most common calculations (NPV, IRR, ratios, lease accounting, etc.) are present. A few areas are thin (e.g., crypto accounting has only two tools), but overall the surface is comprehensive for a financial analysis toolkit.
Average 2/5 across 178 of 178 tools scored. Lowest: 1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as mutability, side effects, or computational complexity. The agent has no clue what happens when this tool is invoked.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but not concise in a informative way. It lacks critical details and essentially serves as a placeholder, wasting the opportunity to guide the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (two nested objects, no output schema, high sibling count), the description is completely inadequate. It provides zero contextual information to enable correct selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning to the two object parameters ('base_case', 'scenario'), leaving their structure and semantics completely undefined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology, merely repeating the tool name without specifying what a 'scenario delta' is or how it differs from siblings like budget_forecast__cagr or budget_forecast__driver_based_budget.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about scenarios, base cases, or the delta concept.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It does not specify whether the tool calculates or returns anything.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While short, the description is under-specified and provides no information. It does not earn its place as it adds no value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no parameter descriptions. The description is insufficient for an agent to correctly select or invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'final_ebitda' or 'multiple', leaving their purpose unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology, restating the name. It provides no verb or resource, offering no clarity on what the tool computes beyond the name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is given. The description does not distinguish when to use this vs. sibling terminal value methods like terminal_value_gordon.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose that it assumes perpetual constant growth, requires a discount rate, or any other behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but fails to convey any useful information, making it under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a financial computation tool with no output schema, the description provides no context on the formula, assumptions, or return format, leaving an AI agent with insufficient information to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 3 parameters with no descriptions, and the tool description adds no meaning beyond their names ('final_fcf', 'wacc', 'g').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology, repeating the tool name without specifying that it computes the Gordon growth model terminal value.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like terminal_value_exit_multiple, or how it differs from other valuation methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It provides no information on side effects, authorization needs, or return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief, it fails to be concise because it omits essential information. Every sentence should earn its place; here the single sentence adds no value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values (e.g., computed NCI amount). It provides nothing, leaving the agent completely in the dark.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter meanings. The names method, nci_fair_value, pct_nci, net_identifiable_assets are cryptic without elaboration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is a tautology: it merely echoes the tool name without stating a verb or resource. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like goodwill_partial or nci_share_of_profit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Agent must infer entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description lacks any behavioral details such as whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. It does not disclose any traits beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely short, the description is not concise—it is under-specified. It fails to earn its place by providing any useful information beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a near-empty description, the tool is completely underspecified for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'ebit' and 'interest'. It does not explain what these values represent or their expected format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is merely '[credit-analysis] interest_coverage', which is a tautology restating the name. It does not specify that the tool computes the interest coverage ratio from EBIT and interest expenses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like credit_analysis__dscr or credit_analysis__fixed_charge_coverage. The description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a terse description, there is no disclosure of behavioral traits such as whether the tool calculates break-even units, or any prerequisites, side effects, or limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely short, the description sacrifices all informative content for brevity, making it useless. It does not front-load critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, parameter descriptions, and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is entirely incomplete and fails to equip an agent for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no meaning to the three parameters ('price', 'fixed_costs', 'variable_cost'). The agent gains no insight beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[cvp-breakeven] breakeven_units' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without explaining what it computes. It fails to specify the verb or resource, leaving the purpose ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over the many sibling CVP tools (e.g., breakeven_sales, contribution_margin). The description offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden, but it provides no behavioral information—no mention of being a read operation, return format, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short but vacuous; under-specification renders it useless. Conciseness without substance is not effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool computes a debt payoff schedule but the description lacks details on input requirements (debts array structure) and output format. With no output schema, the agent is flying blind.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameters 'debts' and 'monthly_budget' have no descriptions in schema or text. The description adds no meaning to these fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is a tautology: '[debt-payoff] snowball_schedule' merely restates the name. It does not explain that the tool computes a debt payoff schedule using the snowball method (smallest debts first).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like debt_payoff__avalanche_schedule. No context is provided to help the agent decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the tool is purely computational (read-only) or has side effects, what output format to expect, or any prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but lacks substantive information. It is under-specified rather than concise; every sentence should add value, but this single line adds none.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of earned value management, the absence of an output schema, and the bare input schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine the tool's behavior, expected inputs, or return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no documentation for parameters (pv, ev, ac). The description adds nothing about what these parameters represent (e.g., planned value, earned value, actual cost) or how they map to variance calculations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[earned-value-mgmt] variances' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying which variances are computed (e.g., cost variance, schedule variance) or how they are derived. It provides no actionable understanding of the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling EVM tools (e.g., eac_atypical, eac_cpi, tcpi). The description lacks any context for appropriate usage or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided and the description gives no information about side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only or destructive. The behavioral profile is completely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is extremely short, this is under-specification rather than conciseness. No sentences earn their place; the single phrase adds negligible information. A 1–2 word label is not an adequate description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool likely performs a complex IBNR calculation with two required array inputs and no output schema, the description is radically incomplete. It fails to explain the calculation method, input order, output format, or how it integrates with other reserving tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The arrays 'ultimates' and 'paid_to_date' are undocumented. The description adds no meaning—does not explain what data they expect, their shape, or units. Without compensation, the agent cannot prepare correct inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is merely '[insurance-reserving] ibnr', which is a tautology of the tool name and acronym suffix. It does not state what the tool does (e.g., calculate, estimate) nor identify the specific resource (e.g., IBNR reserve). A user would have to guess its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There are no guidelines on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like insurance_reserving__development_factors or insurance_reserving__project_ultimates. The description offers zero context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to state whether the tool performs a calculation, mutates data, or requires specific prerequisites. The word 'net_worth' implies computation, but the description does not confirm this or describe any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single phrase that provides no actionable information. This is under-specification, not conciseness. Every sentence should earn its place; here, no sentence provides value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of two required object parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and several sibling tools in the same domain, the description is completely inadequate. An agent has no basis to correctly invoke or interpret the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the tool description adds no meaning. The parameters 'assets' and 'liabilities' are typed as objects with no further indication of expected structure, keys, or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[net-worth-tracker] net_worth' is a tautology, restating the tool name without indicating the tool's function. It does not specify that the tool calculates net worth as assets minus liabilities, nor does it distinguish it from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description lacks any indication of when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as 'asset_allocation' or 'debt_to_asset_ratio', leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a description that only repeats the name, there is zero disclosure of behavior (e.g., that it likely computes a comparison of actual spending to budget targets). The agent cannot infer side effects or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely short, the description is underspecified rather than concise. Every sentence fails to add value beyond the tool's name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four required numeric parameters and no output schema, the description provides none of the needed context about what calculation is performed, what the result represents, or how inputs should be interpreted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the four parameters (income, actual_needs, actual_wants, actual_savings). The agent cannot infer that these represent categories from a budgeting rule like 50/30/20.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology, repeating the tool name without specifying any action, resource, or purpose. It fails to tell the agent what the tool actually does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'fifty_thirty_twenty' or 'savings_rate'. The description gives no contextual clues for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no behavioral details, the agent cannot infer whether this tool is read-only, mutates data, or computes a value. The description is silent on side effects and requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only a label; it is under-specified rather than concise. Every sentence should earn its place, but here there is no substantive content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no description of return values or behavior, the tool definition is completely inadequate for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning to the parameters (capex, acquisitions, disposal_proceeds), leaving the agent to infer from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely echoes the tool name ('[statement-preparation] investing_cash_flow') without specifying what the tool does. It lacks a verb or resource definition, making it a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like financing_cash_flow or operating_cash_flow_indirect. The description offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It provides no information about side effects, required permissions, or output behavior. It is entirely non-transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While short, the description is severely under-specified. It does not earn its place because it conveys zero actionable information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke this tool. It fails to provide any context about expected inputs or outputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must add meaning to the parameters (opening, receipts, disbursements). However, the description adds nothing, leaving the agent to guess the purpose of each parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology: it merely repeats the tool name '[treasury-management] cash_position' without providing a verb or explaining what operation it performs. It fails to clarify the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as treasury_management__liquidity_runway_days or treasury_management__fx_forward_rate. The description offers no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must provide behavioral context. It offers none—no mention of destructive actions, authentication needs, or return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is very short, it is not concise in a helpful way; it fails to convey essential information. It is underspecified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given many sibling compliance tools and no output schema, the description provides zero context to differentiate this tool or understand its inputs and outputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for the two parameters ('tier1', 'total_exposure'). Their purpose and relation to the leverage ratio calculation are entirely unspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is merely '[banking-compliance] leverage_ratio', which does not describe what the tool does. It is a tautology that restates the name without any verb or explanation of functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'capital_ratio' or 'lcr'. The description lacks any context about use cases or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description provides no behavioral context. It does not disclose whether the tool computes a ratio, any side effects, or required permissions, leaving the agent without critical information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but fails to be useful. Under-specification is not conciseness; the single phrase does not earn its place as it provides no value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's likely complexity (computing a regulatory ratio) and the lack of output schema, the description is entirely inadequate. It omits the formula, parameter definitions, and any context about the output, making it impossible for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameter meaning. However, the description only contains 'nsfr' and does not explain that 'available_stable_funding' and 'required_stable_funding' are inputs for the NSFR calculation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is '[banking-compliance] nsfr', which is a tautology of the tool name. It does not explain what NSFR stands for (Net Stable Funding Ratio) or what the tool does, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like lcr or capital_ratio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description gives no indication of when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral information such as whether it computes CAGR, any assumptions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but severely under-specified. It does not fulfill the basic requirement of explaining the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide any context for an agent to understand or use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the three parameters (beginning, ending, years). Their purpose is entirely unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology: it just repeats 'budget-forecast' and 'cagr' without any verb or resource. It does not state what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like budget_forecast__driver_based_budget. No context or alternatives provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is a calculation tool, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. The description is silent on behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It fails to convey any useful information, wasting the opportunity to be helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool computes and what inputs mean. It provides none of that, making it completely inadequate for an AI agent to understand its use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the parameters (price, units, fixed_costs, variable_cost_pct). It does not explain units, whether percentages are decimals, or relationships between parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology (restates the tool name in brackets). It does not state what the tool does, such as calculating a budget using driver-based inputs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like budget_forecast__cagr or budget_forecast__project_revenue. Context for selection is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral information (e.g., side effects, prerequisites, or output format). The burden of transparency is entirely unmet.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but is under-specified rather than concise. It saves space but at the cost of all useful information, so it does not earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has two required parameters with no explanation, no output schema, and no description. This is completely inadequate for a tool with no annotations to rely on.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what 'base' or 'growth_rates' mean. The agent cannot infer purpose or usage from the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[budget-forecast] project_revenue' simply repeats the tool name and provides no verb or resource indicating what the tool does. It is a tautology and fails to distinguish the tool from siblings like 'budget_forecast__cagr'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools in the budget_forecast category, the agent receives no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it does not mention any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, data requirements, error conditions). The token description offers no transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is due to under-specification rather than efficiency. It lacks all necessary detail, so it fails the conciseness ideal of being appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a one-word description, the tool is missing critical information for correct invocation. Given its complexity as a financial computation, it is severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter. The terms 'fcfs', 'wacc', and 'terminal_value' are not defined, leaving an AI agent without needed context to correctly invoke the tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[company-valuation] enterprise_value' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying any action or resource. It does not indicate what the tool does (e.g., computes enterprise value from cash flows). Among siblings like company_valuation__equity_value, it provides no differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description gives no context on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as company_valuation__npv or terminal_value_gordon. There is no statement of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, read-only vs mutation, required prerequisites). The description is completely silent on behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It fails to earn its place because it adds no information beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context for correct invocation or interpretation of results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters, but it provides none. The description does not clarify what 'ev', 'net_debt', or 'minority_interest' represent or how they relate to equity value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is a tautology: '[company-valuation] equity_value' merely restates the tool name. It does not specify what the tool computes, how it relates to enterprise value, or provide any verb-resource clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'company_valuation__enterprise_value' or 'company_valuation__npv'. The description gives no context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or mutable, nor any assumptions or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but fails to be informative. It is under-specified, wasting the opportunity to add value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context for how to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but adds nothing. The parameters 'pct_nci', 'urp_adjustments', and 'subsidiary_profit' are not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology, repeating the tool name without explaining what it does. 'nci_share_of_profit' is not defined, and the context of corporate consolidation is only hinted by the prefix.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'nci_at_acquisition' or other consolidation tools. The description offers no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the tool performs a calculation, what the output represents, or whether it has side effects. Absolute lack of behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise but at the expense of clarity. It provides no useful information. True conciseness would be achieved with a brief yet informative statement, which is absent here.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain the computation (breakeven sales = fixed costs / cm_ratio) and the nature of the result. It provides absolutely no context, making it impossible for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'fixed_costs' and 'cm_ratio'. It does not explain that fixed_costs are total fixed costs and cm_ratio is contribution margin ratio. The description adds no value beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology: it merely repeats the tool name with a prefix. It does not specify what 'breakeven_sales' computes (likely sales revenue needed to break even) or differentiate it from the sibling 'cvp_breakeven__breakeven_units'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'breakeven_units' or other CVP tools. The description offers no context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It does not indicate that the tool performs a calculation, nor does it mention any side effects, authorization needs, or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but lacks substance. It is underspecified rather than concise; a single sentence that repeats the tool name provides no meaningful structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and two parameters, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the formula, prerequisites, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with no useful context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. It does not clarify that 'total_cm' means total contribution margin or that 'operating_income' is net operating income. The description adds no value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology: it repeats the tool name ('degree_of_operating_leverage') without providing any verb or resource. It does not state what the tool does, such as compute degree of operating leverage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like breakeven_sales or margin_of_safety. The description lacks context for its intended use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not disclose any behavioral traits, such as whether the tool performs a simple formula, assumptions, or side effects. It is completely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only a few words, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks structure and fails to convey essential information, wasting the opportunity to provide value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns or how to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions for parameters), and the description adds no information about the parameters. Despite the parameter names being somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not elaborate on their meaning, units, or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is just a restatement of the tool name: '[cvp-breakeven] units_for_target_profit'. It lacks a verb or clear statement of what the tool does. It does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'breakeven_units', which likely calculates units for zero profit, while this tool calculates units for a target profit. The description provides no such differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several sibling CVP tools (e.g., breakeven_units, contribution_margin), but no context is given to help the agent choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description provides no information about side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or behavior. The tool's purpose and consequences are entirely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but at the cost of missing all necessary information. This is under-specification, not conciseness. A useful description would add context in a few sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no schema descriptions, no output schema, and a one-phrase description, the tool is severely incomplete. It fails to explain inputs, outputs, or purpose, making it nearly unusable for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters (debts array, monthly_budget number). The agent has no context on what constitutes 'debts' or how 'monthly_budget' is used.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology: '[debt-payoff] interest_savings' simply repeats the tool name. It does not state what the tool does or differentiate it from siblings like avalanche_schedule or snowball_schedule.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes several debt_payoff tools, but the description offers no criteria for choosing interest_savings over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., that it computes ratios, returns numeric values, or has no side effects). Agent receives zero insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short but under-specified. It is not concise; it omits essential information. A single line without a verb or purpose is ineffective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and three required parameters, the description is completely incomplete. It does not explain what ratios are output, any assumptions, or return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no param information. Parameter names are self-explanatory but description fails to compensate for missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is '[financial-analysis] liquidity_ratios', which merely repeats the tool name. It does not state what the tool does (e.g., compute current ratio or quick ratio). This is a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'profitability_ratios' or 'solvency_ratios'. The description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to indicate whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or what computational method it uses (e.g., chi-square test, z-statistic).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is extremely short, it is under-specified rather than elegantly concise. It wastes no words but fails to provide essential information, which is a form of deficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the statistical complexity of Benford's Law testing, the lack of output schema, and zero annotation support, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'values' has no schema description and the tool description adds no information about its expected format (e.g., array of numbers), interpretation, or constraints. With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology, merely repeating the tool name in brackets. It does not state that this tool performs a Benford's Law digit frequency test, nor does it distinguish it from sibling tools like forensic_accounting__first_digit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other forensic accounting tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or context in which Benford testing is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral context. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only computation, any side effects, or error conditions. The agent cannot infer safety or usage constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It consists of only a bracketed prefix and the tool name, providing no substantive information. An effective description would be longer but more informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (forensic accounting tool) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is critically incomplete. The agent cannot determine the tool's purpose, input semantics, or output format, making it unusable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'value' of type number is not explained. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and with 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no understanding of what value represents (e.g., a number, an array, a percentage?).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[forensic-accounting] first_digit' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It does not specify what the tool does, such as computing the first digit of a number for Benford's law analysis or something else.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., forensic_accounting__benford_test, forensic_accounting__round_number_ratio). The agent has no basis to select this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It gives no information about side effects, data transformation, or required permissions. The tool is a black box.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but this is under-specification, not efficient conciseness. It lacks any useful front-loaded information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of insurance reserving and the absence of output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool calculates or returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and both parameters ('triangle', 'factors') have no description. The text adds no meaning; an agent cannot determine what values to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is a tautology: '[insurance-reserving] project_ultimates' essentially restates the tool name without providing any verb, resource, or actionable meaning. It fails to indicate that this tool computes ultimate claim amounts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'development_factors' or 'ibnr'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No behavioral traits are disclosed. The description gives no information about destructive potential, auth needs, or rate limits, and no annotations exist to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but not concise; it is under-specified. While brevity is present, it fails to convey necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of LIFO periodic costing and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It lacks any context about the calculation, assumptions, or return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the parameters purchases and units_sold. The agent receives no guidance on their format or purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology, restating the tool name without any verb or resource specification. It provides no clear indication of what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fifo_cogs or weighted_average_cogs. The description omits any context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool performs a calculation, creates an entry, or has side effects. The agent has no insight into what happens when this tool is invoked.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (two words), but this is not conciseness—it is under-specification. While it is brief, it fails to convey any useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide comprehensive context. It offers none, leaving the agent with no understanding of the tool's function, inputs, or expected behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the parameter names (days_elapsed, days_in_month, monthly_amount) lack any explanatory context. The description does not clarify what these parameters represent or how they relate to prorating an accrual.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is '[journal-entry] prorate_accrual', which merely repeats the tool's name without any verb or explanation of what the tool accomplishes. It is a tautology that fails to define a specific action or resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context for usage, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral details (e.g., whether it reads or writes, side effects, permissions needed).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise but under-specified. It lacks substantive information, so it is not appropriately sized for the tool's needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a single undocumented parameter, the description is completely inadequate to inform an AI agent about the tool's behavior and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'assets' of type object with no further description. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the expected structure or semantics of 'assets'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is merely a repeat of the tool name with a prefix, e.g., '[net-worth-tracker] asset_allocation'. It does not state what the tool does, making it a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 its siblings, such as net_worth_tracker__net_worth or net_worth_tracker__debt_to_asset_ratio. The description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication. No annotations exist to fill this gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While short, the description is under-specified and fails to convey any useful information. True conciseness requires efficient communication, not merely brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and two object parameters with no description, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; both parameters are undocumented objects with no explanation of expected format. Schema description coverage is 0%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a mere repetition of the tool name with a prefix, providing no indication of the tool's purpose. It is a tautology, similar to the 'Process' calibration example.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other net_worth_tracker tools like net_worth_tracker__asset_allocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits, such as formula used, assumptions, or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks substantive content, so it does not earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description provides no explanation of inputs, outputs, or usage, making it nearly useless for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has three parameters (price, royalty_pct, opex_per_unit) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no explanation of these parameters, leaving their meaning and units completely unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is just a repetition of the tool name in brackets. It does not explain what 'netback' means or what the tool computes, offering no clarity on purpose beyond the name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other oil and gas valuation tools like pv10 or decline_production. The description provides no context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely repeats the name and offers no behavioral details such as what the tool computes, side effects, or required permissions. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but not concise in a helpful way; it is under-specified. It wastes the opportunity to convey purpose or context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter and many sibling tools in personal budgeting, the description is completely inadequate. It does not help the agent understand what the tool does, how to invoke it, or what output to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the single parameter 'monthly_income'. The parameter is a number with no explanation of its role (e.g., expected format, currency, period).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is just a repetition of the tool name with a category prefix, e.g., '[personal-budgeting] fifty_thirty_twenty'. It does not state what the tool does, such as implementing the 50/30/20 budgeting rule, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like savings_rate or zero_based_budget.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description provides no behavioral information. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, performs calculations, or requires any prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is a case of under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks any substantive information to help the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation, the description is completely inadequate for a tool with two required parameters and many similar siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'monthly_income' and 'monthly_savings' represent or how they are used, leaving the agent without necessary semantic understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[personal-budgeting] savings_rate' is a tautology, restating the tool name without any verb or explanation of what the tool does. It fails to indicate that it likely calculates a savings rate from monthly income and savings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'fifty_thirty_twenty' or 'zero_based_budget'. The context is entirely missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and only a minimal description, there is no disclosure of behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The description carries the full burden but fails to provide any behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short, it is not effectively concise because it omits essential information. It is underspecified rather than cleanly conveying core purpose. A score of 2 acknowledges the lack of verbosity but penalizes the failure to convey meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and any parameter descriptions, the description is grossly incomplete. For a tool with two required parameters and no other context, the description must provide more information to enable correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters with no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning to the parameters 'gross_outflows' and 'collections', leaving the agent without any semantic guidance beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology, merely repeating the tool name 'net_burn' within brackets. It does not state what the tool does, such as calculating net burn rate from gross outflows and collections. This provides no clarity for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus similar siblings like 'predictive_burn_rate__simple_runway' or 'predictive_burn_rate__growth_adjusted_runway', leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention any side effects, permissions, or whether the tool is read-only. The agent is left blind.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (two words plus brackets), but it is under-specification rather than conciseness. It fails to provide necessary information while being brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the output represents or how to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are not explained in the schema. The description adds no meaning for 'revenue', 'direct_costs', or 'allocated_costs'. The agent cannot infer how to use these parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is just a repetition of the tool name in brackets. It does not state what the tool does, lacking any verb or resource. It is essentially a tautology and does not help the agent understand the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool compared to siblings like product_profitability__allocate_costs or product_profitability__unit_economics. The description provides no context for decision making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. The description is completely silent on behavioral traits such as what the tool returns, side effects, or computational nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but at the cost of being uninformative. It is under-specification, not conciseness. One sentence that adds no value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three required parameters and sibling tools for cost allocation and product P&L, the description does not explain how unit economics fits in. No output schema or return value hints. Completely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to parameters (arpu, cac, variable_cost_per_user). The agent receives no hints about what these numbers represent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is a tautology: '[product-profitability] unit_economics' merely restates the tool name with brackets. It gives no indication of what the tool does or what it computes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like product_profitability__allocate_costs or product_profitability__product_pnl. No context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it says nothing about what the tool computes, side effects, or assumptions. The agent cannot infer that this calculates a ratio of retirement income to pre-retirement income or any other behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but wastes the opportunity to be informative. It is not concise in a helpful way—it is under-specified, failing to earn its place despite being brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the domain complexity (retirement planning), presence of multiple sibling tools, and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not provide enough information for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain the two required parameters (pre_retirement_income, retirement_income). Their names hint at their meaning, but no clarification is given on how they relate or what units/formulas are used.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology: '[retirement-planning] replacement_ratio' merely restates the tool name without any verb or resource indicating what the tool does. It provides no specific purpose, and there is no differentiation from sibling tools like nest_egg_target or safe_withdrawal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any decision framework for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state that the tool likely calculates a safe withdrawal amount, nor does it disclose any behavioral traits such as assumptions, formulas, or constraints. The description provides no transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one line) which could be concise if it were informative, but it is merely a repeat of the name. Brevity without content is underspecification, not conciseness. The structure is minimal and front-loads no useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters (one required), no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools in retirement_planning category, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to define inputs, outputs, or usage context. For a meaningful financial computation tool, this is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema has no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain what 'rate' or 'portfolio' represent or how they affect the computation. The name 'safe_withdrawal' hints at portfolio and withdrawal rate, but the description adds no semantic value beyond what can be inferred from parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is 'safe_withdrawal' which merely restates the tool name. It does not use a specific verb or indicate what the tool calculates or produces. Given sibling tools like 'future_value' and 'nest_egg_target', the description offers no differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'retirement_planning__required_monthly_contribution' or 'retirement_planning__replacement_ratio'. The context is entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it provides no information about side effects, prerequisites, data sources, or return behavior. The tool could perform a calculation or modify data, but the description gives no clues.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but sacrifices all informational value. Conciseness is about efficiency, not omission; here, the description is under-specified and fails to convey essential purpose or usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a calculation tool with 3 required inputs and no output schema, the description is completely incomplete. It does not explain the calculation logic (e.g., revenue recognition over time using percentage of completion), expected outputs, or how the parameters interplay.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are 3 required parameters (allocated, months_elapsed, total_months) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning to these parameters—it does not explain their units, expected ranges, or how they relate to the tool's purpose. This makes it impossible for an AI agent to correctly populate them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[revenue-recognition] over_time_revenue' is a tautological restatement of the tool name. It does not specify any verb or resource purpose, leaving the tool's function completely unclear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. Sibling tools like 'revenue_recognition__allocate_transaction_price' or 'revenue_recognition__contract_liability' exist, but the description offers no differentiation or context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits. It fails to mention input expectations (e.g., periodic_returns format), return value, or any side effects. The agent cannot infer whether this is a read-only computation or requires authentication.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but at the cost of being uninformative. Genuine conciseness would convey the purpose and key details in few words. This is underspecification, not conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given two parameters (one required), no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is critically incomplete. It should specify the computation (e.g., standard deviation of returns scaled by sqrt(periods_per_year)), required input format, and typical output. Without these, the agent cannot use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters (periodic_returns, periods_per_year). The name hints at volatility but adds no meaning beyond the raw schema. The agent would not know what data to pass in the array.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology: '[risk-assessment] annualized_volatility' repeats the tool name. It does not state what the tool does, such as calculating annualized volatility from periodic returns. There is no differentiation from sibling tools like historical_var or parametric_var.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are other risk assessment and volatility-related tools, but no context is given for when annualized_volatility is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this tool computes a minimum variance hedge ratio, that it requires correlation and volatilities, or any side effects or return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to convey essential information, so it does not earn high marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three required numeric parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It provides no context for proper invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter context. The parameter names (corr, sigma_spot, sigma_future) are not explained, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and valid ranges.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is merely the tool name with a prefix '[risk-assessment]', which is a tautology. It provides no explanation of what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings like 'annualized_volatility' or 'historical_var', there is no differentiation or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether the tool is read-only, mutating, or what side effects exist. It does not mention permissions, output format, or any constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but not genuinely concise—it lacks essential information. A single line that merely echoes the tool name is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 required numeric parameters and no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain what the tool produces or how to interpret the results. Given the complexity of cash reconciliation, the description fails to provide sufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory (opening_cash, cfo, cfi, cff), the description does not clarify their usage, expected units, or how they relate to the reconciliation process.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology, simply repeating the tool name with a prefix. It does not state what the tool does, failing to differentiate it from sibling tools like operating_cash_flow or investing_cash_flow. It offers no verb or resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no information on when to use this tool versus alternatives like statement_preparation__financing_cash_flow or any reconciliation tool. No context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the tool computes net cash flow, expects signed values, or any other important behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, but this comes at the cost of all informative content. It is under-specified rather than efficiently clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what inputs mean or what output to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning to parameters like 'debt_drawn' or 'dividends_paid'. It does not explain sign conventions, units, or how they are used in calculation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is a tautology: it repeats the tool name '[statement-preparation] financing_cash_flow' without stating what the tool does. There is no verb or resource defined, leaving the purpose unclear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'statement_preparation__operating_cash_flow_indirect' or 'statement_preparation__investing_cash_flow'. The description lacks context for proper selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention any side effects, assumptions, or required permissions. The description is completely silent on behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely short, the description is under-specified rather than concise. It does not earn its place because it adds no information beyond the tool name. A single line with actual content would be concise; this is insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (tax rate calculation) and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. The agent cannot determine inputs, outputs, or behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'tax' and 'income'. The agent has no clue what units, expected ranges, or calculations are involved.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tag '[tax-planning] effective_rate' which merely restates the tool name. It does not specify what the tool computes (e.g., effective tax rate) or distinguish it from siblings like tax_planning__marginal_rate or tax_planning__progressive_tax.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given that sibling tools include several tax functions, this omission is critical.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description gives no behavioral information. Agent cannot infer side effects or data access patterns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is under-specified, consisting only of a tag and the name. It is not concise in a helpful way; it omits essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of marginal rate calculation with income and brackets, and lack of output schema, the description is completely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of 'income' or 'brackets' parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is a tautology: '[tax-planning] marginal_rate' does not state what the tool does. No verb or resource is specified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like tax_planning__effective_rate or tax_planning__progressive_tax.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description offers no information about behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or return behavior. The agent gains no insight beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise but fails to convey any useful information. Conciseness without substance is under-specification, not efficiency. A 2 reflects that it is short but detrimental to usability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a missing description, the tool is essentially undocumented. The description provides none of the context needed for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameter descriptions are missing. The tool description does not add any meaning to the parameters (tolerance, total_assets, total_liabilities, total_equity), leaving the agent to guess their roles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is just a repetition of the tool name in brackets: '[three-statement-modeling] balance_check'. It provides no verb or resource to indicate what the tool does, nor does it distinguish it from sibling tools like 'three_statement_modeling__cash_ties'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools. There is no context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral information such as side effects, permissions, or output format. The agent has no understanding of what the tool does beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one line), which could be seen as concise, but it lacks any substance. Conciseness should not sacrifice informativeness; here it provides no value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, numerous siblings in three_statement_modeling), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide essential context for the agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (bs_cash, tolerance, cf_closing_cash). The agent cannot infer their meaning or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is just a repetition of the tool name in brackets, providing no indication of what the tool does or what 'cash ties' means. It fails to specify a verb or resource, and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'balance_check' or 'project_year'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 alternatives. The description gives no context about scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no description of behavior, the agent cannot infer whether this is a read-only calculation, a data mutation, or requires any permissions. The description is absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but at the cost of being underspecified. It is not concise in a helpful way; it fails to convey essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a financial calculation tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description lacks any explanation of what the tool computes, what the return value is (likely ending retained earnings), or any edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description adds no meaning. The parameter names (opening_re, net_income, dividends) are self-explanatory but the description does not clarify their relationship or units.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology, simply restating the tool name 'retained_earnings_rollforward' without explaining that it calculates ending retained earnings as opening + net income - dividends. It fails to specify the verb ('computes', 'calculates') or the output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling three-statement tools like balance_check or cash_ties. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read/write semantics, destructive potential, or any other operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but fails to convey useful information. Conciseness should not sacrifice clarity; here it is under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and three unexplained parameters, the description is wholly inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the meaning of any parameters. For a financial calculation, each parameter's role should be clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is a tautology, repeating the tool name without any verb or explanation. It fails to state what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include other treasury management functions, but no context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool performs a calculation, requires specific permissions, or has side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but not concise; it lacks essential information. Under-specification outweighs brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and four unexplained required parameters, the description is wholly inadequate for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters but does not. It does not define what 'foh_rate', 'actual_foh', 'budgeted_foh', or 'std_hours_allowed' mean in context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[variance-analysis] fixed_overhead_variances' is a tautology, simply restating the tool name. It does not specify what the tool computes or how it relates to siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other variance analysis or financial tools. No context or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or prerequisites. The description carries full burden for transparency but provides none.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It fails to add any value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 required parameters with no descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is entirely inadequate. An AI agent would have no understanding of input semantics or expected output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The tool description does not compensate by explaining what std_rate, act_rate, or act_hours represent or how they are used in the calculation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[variance-analysis] labor_rate_variance' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name, providing no information about what the tool does or what it calculates. The verb 'variance' is implied but not explained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (e.g., labor_efficiency_variance, material_price_variance). The description does not differentiate it from other variance analysis tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description adds no behavioral information. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, or operational constraints, leaving the agent entirely uninformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is extremely short, it is under-specified to the point of uselessness. It does not earn its place by providing any information beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate with rich context. It fails entirely, offering no explanation of inputs, outputs, or behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must explain parameters. It does not: it only repeats the tool name. The parameters 'monthly_burn' and 'net_loan_proceeds' are left completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology ('[venture-debt] runway_extension_months'), merely restating the tool name without any verb or resource indicating what the tool does. It provides no actionable purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings like venture_debt__payment_schedule or venture_debt__total_cost_of_debt. There is no context about prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided and description gives zero behavioral details (e.g., read/write, side effects, prerequisites). Agent has no clue what invoking this tool entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short but fails to communicate essential information; brevity without substance is under-specification, not conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation, the description is wholly inadequate for an agent to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and description adds no meaning to the three parameters (rows, closing_fee, final_payment_fee). Agent cannot infer expected input formats or relationships.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is a tautology: '[venture-debt] total_cost_of_debt' merely restates the name without any verb or resource. Does not indicate what the tool computes or returns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like payment_schedule or runway_extension_months. Lacks any context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits, side effects, or safety information. The tool's name suggests a DIO calculation, but no behavior is described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, which is concise, but it lacks any substantive content. Under-specification is not conciseness; it fails to fulfill the basic requirement of explaining the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is completely incomplete. It offers no value beyond the tool's name, leaving the agent with no understanding of the tool's purpose or usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the three parameters (avg_inventory, cogs, days). The agent cannot infer what these parameters represent or how they relate to the tool's function.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is only '[working-capital-analysis] dio,' which is a label rather than a statement of purpose. It does not specify what the tool does, making it completely unhelpful for an AI agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. its numerous siblings, such as cash_conversion_cycle, dpo, dso, or working_capital_need. There is no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. There is no mention of whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, leaving the agent without critical information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is due to under-specification rather than conciseness. It omits essential information, so it does not earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and the complexity of a financial metric like DPO, the description is wholly incomplete. It does not explain the formula, expected output, or interpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain any of the three parameters (avg_payables, cogs, days). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is '[working-capital-analysis] dpo', which merely restates the tool name. It does not indicate that DPO stands for Days Payables Outstanding or specify what the tool calculates. This is a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like working_capital_analysis__dio or working_capital_analysis__dso. The description lacks any context on prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only or requires specific permissions. There is no information about side effects or computational requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short, it sacrifices essential information. A concise description should still convey core purpose or usage; here, it falls short of being useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a financial metric with multiple parameters and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool returns or how inputs relate to the calculation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage (0%), yet the description provides no explanation of the parameters (days, revenue, avg_receivables). The description fails to add meaning beyond the bare schema, leaving an agent unable to infer correct usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[working-capital-analysis] dso' merely restates the tool's name and category without explaining its purpose. It does not mention that DSO stands for Days Sales Outstanding or that it calculates the average collection period, which is essential for understanding the tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like working_capital_analysis__dio or working_capital_analysis__dpo. The description lacks any context about appropriate use cases or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description provides no behavioral information such as whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. The agent has no insight into side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly concise to the point of being useless. It lacks any meaningful content or structure, failing to earn its place. True conciseness would convey the tool's function in few words, but here it is under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of fixed asset accounting and the lack of an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., depreciation expense for the period) or provide any contextual details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to parameters. While parameter names like 'cost', 'residual', 'total_units', and 'units_this_period' are somewhat intuitive, the description should explain their role in the calculation, which it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology, merely repeating the tool's name without specifying a verb or the output. It fails to indicate that the tool calculates units-of-production depreciation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'straight_line' or 'double_declining_schedule', leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it fails to mention any side effects, assumptions, or data requirements. It is essentially empty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely short, it is not concise in a meaningful way; it omits necessary information. Every sentence of the description should add value, but this one merely repeats the name, making it insufficient rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a statistical anomaly detection method with two sibling tools and a total of two parameters. The description provides no context about input requirements, output format, or how it differs from siblings. It is completely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (values, k) with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no explanation. The agent has no clue what values should contain (e.g., numerical array) or what k represents (e.g., IQR multiplier).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description only repeats the tool name with a prefix '[ai-anomaly-detection] iqr_anomalies'. It lacks any verb or resource indicating what the tool does, e.g., 'Detects anomalies using IQR method'. Without context, an agent cannot infer the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling anomaly detection tools like rolling_deviation_anomalies or zscore_anomalies. The description offers no usage context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It provides no information about side effects, required permissions, or return structure. The tool is a calculation, but this is not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but fails to convey essential information. It is underspecified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three required numeric inputs and no output schema, the description is entirely inadequate. It provides no context on the calculation, use case, or return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. Description does not explain any of the three parameters (total_debt, cash, ebitda). Agent cannot infer their meaning or expected units.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description '[credit-analysis] net_leverage' vaguely indicates a credit analysis tool but fails to state that it computes the net leverage ratio (Total Debt - Cash) / EBITDA. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like DSCR or interest coverage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It does not indicate that the tool is a read-only computation, what it returns, or any side effects. The description provides zero transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is extremely short, it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential information about the tool's function. Front-loaded content is missing; the bare minimum of purpose is not conveyed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two numeric inputs, no output schema), the description should at least state the formula or the output (e.g., 'Contribution margin = price - variable_cost'). It provides no contextual completeness, making it inadequate for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (price, variable_cost) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no explanation of what these parameters represent (e.g., price per unit, variable cost per unit). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[cvp-breakeven] contribution_margin' is a tautology of the tool name. It does not state that the tool computes contribution margin (price minus variable cost) or provide any meaningful purpose. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'breakeven_units' or 'breakeven_sales'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., when needing contribution margin vs. breakeven point). There is no mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It provides none, not even stating that the tool calculates monthly interest or its formula. The agent gains no insight into side effects or safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but lacks substance. It does not earn its place with any useful information, simply echoing the tool name in a bracketed prefix.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to convey the tool's purpose, inputs, or behavior for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It adds nothing about balance or annual_rate, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[debt-payoff] monthly_interest' is a tautology, restating the tool name without specifying what it does. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like debt_payoff__avalanche_schedule or debt_payoff__interest_savings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context is provided. The description fails to indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as for calculating monthly interest vs. generating a payoff schedule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is a read-only calculation, whether it requires specific permissions, or what side effects (if any) occur. The description is completely silent on behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise but at the cost of missing essential information. It is not structured; it reads as a header or label rather than a functional description. Conciseness should serve clarity, not replace it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of deferred tax calculations and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It does not clarify the formula, the relationship between inputs, or the result type. With no output schema, the agent has no idea what the tool returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (current_tax, pretax_income, deferred_tax_expense). It adds no meaning beyond the parameter names, which may be ambiguous without context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is merely a restatement of the tool's name segment 'effective_tax_rate' with a namespace prefix. It lacks a verb, does not specify what action is performed (e.g., calculates, computes), and provides no indication of the tool's output or purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like deferred_tax__deferred_tax_balance or tax_planning__effective_rate. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. The agent has no clue about the output or safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Though very brief, the description is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to provide necessary information in an efficient manner.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves the agent completely in the dark about what profitability ratios are calculated or how to interpret results. It is wholly inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter names like revenue and net_income are self-explanatory, but with 0% schema coverage and no description elaboration, the agent gains no additional meaning. No units or constraints are mentioned.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is essentially the tool name, providing no specific verb or resource. It does not differentiate from other ratio tools or state what specific profitability ratios are computed. This is a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With many sibling ratio tools, the description fails to help the agent choose this tool over alternatives like liquidity_ratios or dupont.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool mutates data, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. It fails to inform the agent of any side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but under-specified. It provides no useful structure or front-loaded key information, making it insufficient rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or how to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the four parameters. It does not explain what each parameter represents (e.g., total_liabilities, equity, ebit, interest) or how they should be used.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description repeats the tool name as '[financial-analysis] solvency_ratios', giving only a vague domain hint. It lacks a verb or specific action, and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like liquidity_ratios or profitability_ratios.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context for selection or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool returns annual depreciation, requires positive inputs, or handles errors. The description is completely silent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but not appropriately concise; it omits essential information. It is under-specified rather than efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters with zero documentation, the description fails to provide a complete picture. Even a simple depreciation calculation requires stating the formula and assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning to the parameters (cost, residual, life_years). It does not explain how they relate to the calculation or any constraints (e.g., life_years > 0).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology, simply restating the tool name 'straight_line' with a prefix. It does not specify what the tool does, e.g., compute straight-line depreciation. The sibling tools include other depreciation methods, but no differentiation is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like double_declining_schedule or units_of_production. The description implies it is for straight-line depreciation but does not state conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided and description adds no behavioral info. Agent must assume it performs an LBO calculation with no insight into side effects, safety, or output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely terse but under-specified. The description provides no useful information, so it fails to earn its place; it is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex LBO modeling tool with 1 nested parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to cover essential context for agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description does not explain the nested parameter 'a' or its fields (years, debt_pct, etc.). The schema itself lacks descriptions, leaving the agent without any parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is just '[lbo-modeling] run_lbo', which hints at running an LBO model but lacks a specific verb-resource statement. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like company_valuation or debt_restructuring.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites, inputs, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It provides none, leaving the agent unaware of any state changes, permissions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but sacrifices all informative content. It is underspecified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of zero-based budgeting, the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions leaves the agent with no useful information to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the meaning of 'monthly_income' or 'expenses' beyond their types, nor how the tool uses them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology, repeating the tool name without stating what the tool does. It provides no verb or actionable information to distinguish it from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other personal budgeting tools. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It gives no behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or output nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but lacks substance. It is under-specified rather than concise, offering no useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters with no documentation and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description does not explain the meaning or usage of 'rate' or 'desired_annual_income'. Parameters are left entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely repeats the tool name in brackets, providing no indication of what the tool does. It is a tautology and fails to distinguish from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus other retirement_planning tools like future_value or required_monthly_contribution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description is a mere noun phrase and reveals nothing about side effects, idempotency, authentication needs, or output behavior. The agent has no clue what happens when this tool is called.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one phrase) but at the expense of being useless. It does not earn its place because it communicates almost nothing beyond the tool name. True conciseness should pack meaning efficiently, not omit essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is part of a revenue recognition suite with complex accounting concepts. Given no output schema, minimal parameters, and a domain that typically requires context (e.g., what is the contract liability? How is it derived?), the description is completely inadequate for enabling correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds zero meaning to the parameters 'billed' and 'recognized'. The relationship between these numbers (e.g., subtraction to get liability) is not hinted. The agent gets no help understanding how to set these parameters correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a domain label but no verb or action; it is a noun phrase that vaguely indicates the tool is about contract liability in revenue recognition, but does not specify whether it calculates the liability, adjusts it, or reports it. It fails to distinguish from siblings like allocate_transaction_price or over_time_revenue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. Zero actionable information for an AI agent to decide when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided and description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as assumptions, return values, or required inputs. Agent has no information about what the tool computes or produces.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short but at the cost of utility. It is not a proper sentence and lacks structure. Under-specification is not conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. Does not explain what the tool returns, how factors are used, or the valuation method.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (5 required, 1 optional). Schema has 0% coverage, so description should compensate but provides no meaning for 'sound_idea', 'prototype', 'team', 'relationships', 'rollout', or 'cap_per_factor'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is only '[startup-valuation] berkus', which is a reference to the Berkus method but does not explicitly state what the tool does. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'vc_method' or 'dilution'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidelines about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no context for when Berkus method is appropriate compared to other startup valuation methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool returns a single value, the basis for the calculation, or any assumptions. The description is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While short, the description is not appropriately sized because it lacks all useful information. The single fragment does not earn its place as it adds no value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 required parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is entirely incomplete. It provides no context for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 4 parameters (exit_value, years, required_irr, investment). The agent cannot infer parameter roles or formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology: it merely repeats the tool's name in brackets. It does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., compute post-money valuation using IRR). It only hints at the domain and method.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like startup_valuation__berkus or startup_valuation__vc_method. The description gives no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description adds no behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or return value nature. 'Label' is ambiguous and uninformative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. Every sentence should add value; here the single phrase is essentially the tool name itself.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It fails to provide any meaningful context for an AI agent to select or invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify what the parameter 'v' (number) represents. Without additional context, the parameter's meaning is unknown.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[variance-analysis] label' is essentially a tautology of the tool name, providing no verb or resource to indicate what action the tool performs. It fails to distinguish among the many sibling variance analysis tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many other variance analysis tools (e.g., 'variance_analysis__fixed_overhead_variances'). Implied context is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No behavioral details beyond the sign convention. The tool's formula, assumptions (e.g., whether it computes (act_price - std_price)*act_qty or similar), and any side effects are absent. No annotations are provided to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one fragment), but it lacks a clear, front-loaded statement of purpose. It is under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description is critically incomplete. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool without guessing the formula and parameter meanings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameters (std_price, act_price, act_qty) are not described in the schema or the description. The agent gets no explanation of what each parameter represents or expects, despite 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description only states a sign convention ('Positive = favorable.') but does not explicitly state that the tool computes material price variance. The tool's name provides some clue, but the description fails to clarify the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other variance analysis tools like labor_rate_variance or material_usage_variance. The description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool requires pre-computed day values, what the output represents, or if there are any side effects (none expected). The agent has no information beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It provides no substantive information beyond the tool name. A concise description would be efficient yet informative, but this one lacks necessary content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the purpose, input semantics, output format, or usage context. An AI agent cannot reliably select or invoke this tool with the current description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has three parameters (dio_v, dpo_v, dso_v) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what these parameters represent (likely days inventory outstanding, days payable outstanding, days sales outstanding) or their expected format. The agent must infer meaning from the parameter names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is essentially a tautology: '[working-capital-analysis] cash_conversion_cycle' just repeats the tool name with brackets. It does not explain what the tool calculates (e.g., DIO + DSO - DPO) or differentiate it from sibling tools like dio, dso, dpo that compute individual components.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include component calculations and other working capital metrics, but the description does not clarify whether this tool should be used when all three inputs are available or if it replaces individual computations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a minimal description, the tool's behavioral characteristics (return type, side effects, authentication needs, thresholds) are completely undisclosed. The description adds no value beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (7 words) but due to under-specification, not efficiency. The description does not earn its brevity; a 5-parameter banking tool needs at least a sentence clarifying inputs and outputs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, banking domain), the description is wholly incomplete. No output type, no parameter semantics, no behavioral context, and no guidance among siblings. The agent cannot effectively select or use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter explanations. For a 5-parameter tool, this is severely inadequate—e.g., 'dsib' and 'minimum' are undefined, leaving the agent guessing their meaning and required input range.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is a tautology: '[banking-compliance] buffer_check' merely restates the name with a prefix, offering no explanation of what the tool does (e.g., checking capital buffers against minimum requirements). The parameter names hint at CET1 ratio and buffers (conservation, countercyclical, DSIB surcharge), but no explicit purpose is stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description fails to indicate when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'capital_ratio', 'lcr', or 'leverage_ratio' (e.g., for buffer adequacy vs. core ratio computation).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, destructive, permissions, output format). The description carries full burden but offers zero transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one line) but sacrifices all meaningful content. It is under-specified rather than concise, providing no value to the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the output, the formula, or domain context, leaving the agent without essential information to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names 'hqla' and 'net_outflows_30d'. While these names hint at an LCR calculation, the description does not explain units, constraints, or how they relate to the tool's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description '[banking-compliance] lcr' is a tautology, merely repeating the tool name with a prefix. It does not specify what the tool does (e.g., compute the LCR ratio). It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like buffer_check or nsfr.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling banking compliance tools, an agent cannot infer appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, computes, or modifies data. The agent has no information about side effects, authorization needs, or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one line) but at the cost of clarity. It front-loads the parameter format but omits crucial context, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and rich parameter documentation, the description is highly incomplete. The agent cannot determine the tool's return value, computational logic, or how to interpret results, making it insufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds that 'exposures' is a list of (exposure_amount, risk_weight), which clarifies the expected structure beyond the empty schema. However, it does not specify data types, allowed ranges, or whether the list expects tuples or objects, leaving ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description only states the parameter structure 'exposures: list of (exposure_amount, risk_weight)' without explicitly stating that the tool computes risk-weighted assets (RWA). The purpose is implied by the tool name but not clarified, relying on the agent to infer that it calculates RWA from the given exposures.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. other banking compliance tools like buffer_check, capital_ratio, etc. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or alternatives, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description contains no behavioral information. It does not disclose whether this tool is a calculation, what side effects it has, or any other behavioral traits. The description adds zero value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one phrase), but it sacrifices substance for brevity. Every word is necessary but insufficient. It is not a model of conciseness because it omits essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is critically incomplete. An agent cannot determine what this tool computes, when to use it, or how to interpret its parameters. It provides no context for effective selection or invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the two parameters (face_value, new_value). It provides no context on what these values represent or how they relate to each other. The description fails to add meaning beyond the input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is only a prefix and name ('[debt-restructuring] haircut_pct'), which is essentially a tautology. It does not state what the tool does, lacking a verb or resource clarification. For domain experts it may hint at calculating a haircut percentage, but it's vague and does not distinguish from sibling tools like npv_of_terms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as debt_restructuring__npv_of_terms or debt_restructuring__waterfall. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. The description provides no decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a minimal description, the agent has no insight into side effects, read-only status, or output format. The description only hints at the sign of the result, leaving critical behavioral aspects undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (one short sentence) but at the cost of being under-specifying. It does not earn its place as it omits essential functional details, making it more inadequate than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide even a basic explanation of what the tool computes or returns. It is severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no information about the three required parameters (proceeds, cost, accumulated_depreciation). The agent is left to infer their meaning from parameter names alone, which may be insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Positive = gain, negative = loss.' implies the tool computes gain/loss but doesn't explicitly state it as a verb+resource. It lacks clarity on what exactly the tool does and how it differs from sibling fixed asset tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus other fixed asset or disposal-related alternatives, nor any indications of prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention any constraints, side effects, output format, or calculation methodology. The agent has no insight into what happens when the tool is invoked.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is very short, it is underspecified rather than concise. Important information is omitted, and the structure does not help the agent understand the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (inventory costing with two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the calculation, assumptions, input format, or return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about what 'purchases' (array) or 'units_sold' (number) represent. The agent cannot understand the expected input format or meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is essentially a repetition of the tool name 'weighted_average_cogs' with a category prefix. It does not clearly state what the tool does beyond what the name implies. A specific verb and resource are missing, making it a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no indication of when to use this tool versus siblings like FIFO or LIFO. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully explain behavioral traits. It only mentions a convention for the first cashflow but does not disclose whether the tool performs standard NPV discounting, the significance of the 'rate' parameter, or the nature of the output (e.g., a single numeric value). Critical behavior is omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one clause) but sacrifices necessary substance. Conciseness without clarity is a negative. It lacks a proper structure with title, purpose statement, or usage conditions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (multiple cash flows, discount rate) and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not specify return format, assumptions (e.g., periodic compounding), or edge cases, making it insufficient for correct agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining both parameters. It only adds minimal meaning for cashflows[0] (negative at t=0) and provides no semantic detail for 'rate' or the rest of the cashflows array. The schema itself is uninformative for an agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'cashflows[0] at t=0 (usually negative)' and prefixes '[investment-analysis]'. While the tool name suggests NPV, the description fails to explicitly state that it calculates net present value. This vagueness is problematic given the sibling tool 'company_valuation__npv', which could create confusion about purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as investment_analysis__irr, payback_period, or profitability_index. The description offers no context for tool selection, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. The agent has no way to infer side effects or safety profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one bracketed phrase) but at the cost of being uninformative. Conciseness is only valuable if the content is substantive; here it is under-specified to the point of uselessness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the financial calculation, the absence of an output schema, and the lack of parameter documentation, the description is entirely incomplete. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without making assumptions about the inputs and expected result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema defines two parameters ('rate' and 'cashflows') but provides no descriptions. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. For a financial tool, 'rate' likely means discount rate and 'cashflows' likely an array of monetary flows, but this is not clarified. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is merely a bracketed version of the tool name ('[investment-analysis] profitability_index'). It does not specify any verb or resource, nor does it explain what the tool computes. The name 'profitability_index' gives a hint, but the description adds no clarity, and it barely distinguishes from siblings like npv or irr.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use profitability_index versus other investment analysis tools such as npv, irr, or payback_period. The description lacks any context about intended use cases or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, data modification, required permissions, or output format. The tool likely computes a numeric difference, but this is not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (only the tool name in brackets), but this is underspecification rather than conciseness. It omits essential information, making it unhelpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many siblings, the description is completely inadequate. It does not even hint at the computation (likely percentage or absolute change) or typical use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should add meaning. It does not explain what 'current_nw' and 'previous_nw' represent (e.g., net worth at what time points? any units?). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but insufficient without context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology: '[net-worth-tracker] period_change' merely repeats the tool name without stating what the tool does or what it computes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like net_worth_tracker__net_worth or other period-comparison tools. The context signals list many sibling tools, but the description offers no differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., whether it is a computational formula or has side effects). The tool's behavior is entirely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is extremely short, it lacks essential information and is under-specified. Conciseness requires informativeness, which is absent here.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the four parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the calculation or the role of each parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no information about the parameters (principal, gross_annual_rate, annual_tax_rate, years). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails entirely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology: it merely repeats the tool name without indicating any action or purpose. It does not state that the tool calculates the tax drag cost on an investment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like after_tax_future_value. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions bracket ordering and infinity, but omits key details like what the tool returns, any assumptions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but lacks a clear structure. It reads like a parameter note rather than a tool summary, making it unhelpful despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tax calculation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the computation and output. The current text is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero property descriptions. The description partially compensates by explaining the bracket format, but does not describe the 'income' parameter at all.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description only describes the structure of the brackets parameter but does not explicitly state that the tool computes progressive tax. The title is null, and the name 'progressive_tax' implies the purpose, but the description fails to confirm what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like effective_rate or marginal_rate. The description offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only provides a formula fragment without stating if it computes a variance, returns a number, or has side effects. Completely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence) but not helpful. It lacks structure and context, making it cryptic rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a variance analysis tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain the formula, expected output, or how parameters relate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning for std_hours (defining it as standard hours allowed for actual output) but does not explain std_rate or act_hours. Schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates but insufficiently.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description mentions 'variance-analysis' and 'std_hours = standard hours allowed for ACTUAL output', which hints at labor efficiency variance, but it's too vague to clearly distinguish from sibling tools like labor_rate_variance or material_usage_variance. The purpose is only partially conveyed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other variance analysis tools. The description does not specify context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. It does not state if the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or what the output represents beyond a 'ratio'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence but is under-specified. It fails to earn its place by omitting critical information, making it insufficient rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even for a simple two-parameter tool, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the formula or unit of the result, and with no output schema, the agent is left guessing what 'ratio of actual sales' means.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'actual_sales' or 'breakeven_sales_value'. It adds no value beyond the schema's property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Returned as a ratio of actual sales' is vague and does not explicitly state what the tool calculates. The name 'margin_of_safety' suggests the margin of safety ratio, but the description fails to confirm this or distinguish it from sibling tools like breakeven_sales or contribution_margin.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as breakeven_sales or degree_of_operating_leverage. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and only a name-like description, the agent gets no insight into behavioral traits such as whether the tool mutates data, requires authentication, or has side effects. The description adds nothing beyond the tool's identity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise but at the cost of being uninformative. Every sentence should earn its place; this single sentence provides no actionable information, making it inadequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema, no annotations, and two parameters with no schema descriptions, the description must compensate. It fails completely, offering no hints about return values, edge cases, or behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'debts' array format or the 'monthly_budget' unit. The description adds no semantic value, leaving the agent to guess parameter structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is merely a repetition of the tool name with a bracketed prefix. It does not explicitly state that the tool computes an avalanche debt payoff schedule given debts and monthly budget. The purpose is vague and relies on the name alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not differentiate this tool from the sibling 'debt_payoff__snowball_schedule' or other debt-related tools. An agent has no context on when to choose this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. It simply repeats the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but adds no value. It is underspecified, not concise. Every word should earn its place, and this description fails to provide any useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not state the formula (e.g., liquid_assets / total_assets) or provide any return value context. This is inadequate for a net worth tracking tool in a financial domain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning to the parameters 'liquid_assets' and 'total_assets' beyond their names. It does not explain what qualifies as liquid assets or total assets in this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology: '[net-worth-tracker] liquid_asset_ratio' simply restates the name without specifying that it computes a ratio. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'debt_to_asset_ratio' or 'asset_allocation'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description offers no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals that the tool returns None for zero or negative denominators instead of raising an error, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it is vague about what 'negative-meaningless' means and does not specify the return type for valid inputs (presumably a number). No annotations exist, so the description is the sole source of behavioral info.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It is front-loaded with a key behavioral note but lacks a clear statement of the tool's purpose. It is not well-structured for an agent to quickly grasp the function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover the return value for valid inputs and elaborate on the edge cases. It only partially addresses invalid denominators. Missing info about valid output type and any other constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Neither the schema nor the description provides any semantic explanation for the parameters 'num' and 'den'. The description only mentions the denominator condition, not what the parameters represent numerically. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning to the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'None when the denominator is zero/negative-meaningless rather than raising', implying a safe division operation, but it does not explicitly state the core purpose of dividing two numbers. The verb is implied, not stated, and the resource 'division' is not named.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among the siblings, there are many financial ratio tools, but no mention of how safe_div differs from a regular division or when it should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only calls it a 'quick reasonableness check' without detailing behavior, side effects, or assumptions. With no annotations, it fails to disclose whether it reads data, modifies state, or performs validations. The term 'quick' hints at approximation but is unsubstantiated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one short line), but this conciseness sacrifices essential details. It is not structured to be helpful; a single sentence lacks the space to convey purpose, parameters, or usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of consolidated equity calculations and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, the formula used, or how the calculation accounts for the parameters provided, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any of the four parameters (pct_owned, parent_equity, goodwill_impairment, sub_post_acq_profit). While names are somewhat self-explanatory, terms like 'sub_post_acq_profit' require clarification that is absent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Group share of equity - quick reasonableness check', indicating a calculation of the group's equity share, but lacks specificity on what the check involves. It is distinguishable from siblings like 'goodwill_full' but does not clearly define the exact purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not differentiate between this 'quick reasonableness check' and more detailed tools like 'nci_share_of_profit' or 'goodwill_partial', leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It provides no behavioral traits such as side effects, return values, or required permissions. The description merely states the accounting context without explaining what the tool actually computes or returns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one line) but lacks substantive information. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail. Every sentence should earn its place, but this description is under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 required numeric parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the calculation formula, the expected output, or any assumptions. An agent would lack critical context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The parameter names ('consideration', 'nci_fair_value', 'net_identifiable_assets') are self-explanatory, but the description fails to clarify how they relate to the goodwill calculation. Baseline would be 3 only if schema coverage were high; here it is not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the tool as 'Full goodwill' and references IFRS 3 and US GAAP, making the purpose reasonably clear. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'calculates') and could more directly state what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'goodwill_partial'. The description does not specify conditions or prerequisites for using the full goodwill method.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains only the meaning of 'std_qty' and that positive is favorable. It does not disclose the formula (e.g., (actual qty - standard qty) * standard price), the output value (e.g., variance amount), or any other behavioral traits. Without annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single cryptic line. While short, it lacks clarity and structure. It does not effectively communicate the tool's purpose or usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 required parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the formula, output, or how this tool differs from similar variance analysis tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for one parameter ('std_qty'), leaving 'act_qty' and 'std_price' completely unexplained. This is inadequate for a 3-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description mentions 'material usage variance' and hints at a calculation involving standard quantity for actual output and a favorable direction. However, it does not explicitly state what the tool computes (e.g., 'computes material usage variance'), leaving the purpose somewhat ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling variance analysis tools (e.g., material price variance, labor efficiency variance). No when-not or alternative instructions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It notes the output is an adjustment (increase represented by +), but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires any permissions. The brevity leaves significant behavioral unknowns, though it is implied to be a pure computation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks structure and essential information like parameter explanations or usage context, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the calculation context, output interpretation, or provide any reference to IFRIC 1 revision, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description fails to explain any parameter. Terms like 'old_remaining_pv', 'new_cost_estimate', 'discount', 'inflation', and 'years_remaining' are not defined or contextualized, leaving the agent without semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns an adjustment to both provision and asset for IFRIC 1 revision, using a specific verb ('returns') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling ARO tools like accretion_schedule and initial_aro by specifying 'revision', though it does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a revision adjustment is needed versus an initial ARO or accretion schedule. The description lacks any contextual cues for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the sign convention and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, error handling, or response structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but at the expense of providing necessary information. Important details about parameters and behavior are omitted, so it fails to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and the minimal description, the tool is not adequately documented. The description only covers the sign of the output and does not explain return format, input specifics, or any constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema lacks property descriptions. The tool description adds nothing about the meaning of 'carrying_amount' or 'tax_base', leaving the agent with no guidance on what values to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly associates positive result with taxable temporary difference (DTL) and negative with deductible (DTA), indicating the tool computes a temporary difference. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'computes' or 'calculates' and does not explicitly state the function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other deferred tax tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks details on what 'compare' entails (e.g., whether it returns differences, highlights discrepancies, or performs matching). The tolerance parameter hints at a matching process, but this is not explained. With no annotations, critical behavioral cues are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and under-specified. While concise, it fails to deliver essential information. It could be expanded slightly to cover key aspects without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is wholly inadequate. The tolerance parameter and object structure are not addressed, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain any of the three parameters (tolerance, entity_a_books, entity_b_books). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description bears full responsibility. The mention of 'counterparty key' is not mapped to any parameter, leaving the agent confused about inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('compare') and the specific resources ('IC receivable on A vs IC payable on B per counterparty key'). It distinguishes this tool from its siblings (elimination_entry, unrealized_profit_in_inventory) by its focus on matching. However, it could be more explicit about the matching operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool over the sibling tools (e.g., for reconciliation vs elimination). There is no mention of prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description only states 'Flip Dr/Cr'. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, or other behavioral traits. The description fails to add meaningful context beyond the bare action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While very concise (one sentence), it is under-specified. A single sentence is insufficient to convey necessary details, making it too short to be effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of accounting reversals and the lack of output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what an accrual reversal is, the expected format of input lines, or what the tool returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 1 parameter 'lines' with 0% description coverage. The description only says 'Flip Dr/Cr for an accrual reversal', offering no explanation of what the 'lines' array should contain (e.g., journal entry line items, structure). The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool flips Dr/Cr for an accrual reversal. The verb 'Flip' and resource 'Dr/Cr for an accrual reversal' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like journal_entry__prorate_accrual and journal_entry__validate_entry by focusing on reversal, but does not explicitly contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context for reversal, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose that this is a read-only calculation or what the output is (e.g., a schedule of values). The description only gives a vague behavioral hint about the final balance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is too brief to convey necessary information for a tool with three parameters and no other documentation. It is not front-loaded with critical usage details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description fails to provide enough context for an AI agent to correctly select and invoke this tool. It does not describe the calculation, expected inputs, or return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (opening_pv, discount, years). 'Years' is implied by 'year-by-year', but there is no mapping or explanation of their meaning or units.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'year-by-year unwinding' which indicates it computes an accretion schedule, but it does not explicitly say 'computes' or 'calculates'. The phrase 'closing balance equals the settlement amount' adds specificity, but the purpose could be clearer for an AI agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like aro_computation__initial_aro or aro_computation__revision_adjustment. No context on prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose edge cases (e.g., negative rates, empty arrays), output type, or any safety/reversibility concerns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but sacrifices necessary detail. It is appropriately short yet omits critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and sibling similarity, the description should clarify return value and usage context. It falls short, leaving an AI agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter details. 'rate' and 'cashflows' are not explained (e.g., format, interpretation). The description fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'NPV of cashflows starting at t=1', clearly indicating the tool computes net present value for a specific timing. It is distinguishable from sibling 'investment_analysis__npv' due to the company-valuation context, but the differentiation is implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'investment_analysis__npv' or other valuation tools. No context on prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description only states the purpose. It does not disclose output format, formula, constraints (e.g., BAC > EV), or any side effects. This is insufficient for a compute-only tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but overly terse. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, failing to earn its place as a complete guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and minimal description, the tool is under-specified. The agent cannot determine what the return value looks like or handle edge cases, making it incomplete for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions BAC. No explanation of ac, ev, or their units/expectations is provided, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it computes a cost performance metric related to remaining work to hit BAC, which identifies it as TCPI. It distinguishes from siblings like EAC and variance tools by mentioning 'to hit BAC' specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., EAC, variances). The description does not provide context for appropriate scenarios or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description only mentions that the output includes a 'total'. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur, or any other behavioral traits. The agent is left to assume it is a safe computation, but this is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices critical information. While brevity is valued, the lack of parameter and usage detail makes it only minimally acceptable. A slightly longer description with key details would improve this.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no behavioral annotations, the description is far from complete. It fails to convey what the tool returns, how to use the parameters, or any constraints. The agent has insufficient information to invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and two parameters (aging_balances, loss_rates) that are unexplained. The description only says 'per aging bucket' but does not clarify the structure or expected interpretation of these parameters. The agent cannot determine what format or values to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it computes simplified-approach provisions per aging bucket and includes a total. The term 'simplified-approach' distinguishes it from other ECL tools like lifetime_ecl or scenario_weighted_ecl, making the purpose clear and somewhat differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'simplified-approach' implies a specific context, but no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria are given, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions the residual floor behavior, but with no annotations, it fails to disclose other traits like return format, error handling, or assumptions (e.g., if cost <= residual).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise, but it is overly brief for a tool with no param descriptions. Front-loading the domain tag helps, but lacks structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description partially covers purpose and a key constraint, but misses param details, return value, and edge cases. Incomplete for an agent to invoke reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the three parameters (cost, residual, life_years). Units, expected ranges, and usage are absent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it computes annual double-declining balance (DDB) charges and notes the residual constraint. This distinguishes it from other depreciation methods, though it doesn't explicitly name siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use DDB vs straight-line or units-of-production. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., posting to ledger, irreversibility, or permissions). The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence). While brevity is good, it omits essential details, making it under-specified rather than concise. It does not front-load critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (accounting elimination with numeric parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool returns, parameter semantics, or when to use it. The tool requires far more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some extent, but the description adds no meaning or constraints (e.g., sign, currency, format). This is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: eliminate IC revenue/COGS and defer unrealized margin. It uses specific accounting terms and is understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'unrealized_profit_in_inventory' or 'match_balances'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions. For a specialized accounting tool, usage context is important but absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions the discount rate source (IBR or implicit rate) but fails to disclose behavioral traits like whether the calculation is for initial recognition or subsequent measurement, whether it assumes payments are in arrears unless specified, or what the output represents. The description is insufficient for a financial computation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, but it is too brief to adequately convey the tool's purpose and usage. Concateness is achieved at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of lease liability calculations and the absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the result represents (e.g., initial lease liability) and any key assumptions. It does not, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 4 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description adds almost no meaning. It mentions 'payment' and 'rate' implicitly but does not describe 'term_years' or 'in_arrears'. The agent receives no help beyond parameter names, making correct invocation difficult.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the verb 'PV' and resource 'lease payments at the discount rate', clearly indicating it calculates the present value of level lease payments. It distinguishes from sibling tools like amortization_schedule and rou_depreciation, but the jargon 'PV' might be slightly ambiguous for non-expert agents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., amortization_schedule, rou_depreciation). No explicit conditions or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool computes discounted net cashflows but does not explain what the tool does beyond that—no mention of inputs, outputs, assumptions, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for a financial computation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence, but it front-loads the key purpose. However, conciseness here comes at the expense of completeness, so it is not optimally balanced.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of PV-10, the lack of output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely inadequate. It does not specify the expected output format, the discount rate assumption, or how volumes and netback are used, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the three parameters (rate, volumes, netback_per_unit). It does not define what these parameters represent or how they relate to PV-10 calculation, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that this tool computes SEC-style PV-10, which is a specific discounted cashflow metric for oil and gas. It distinguishes from sibling tools like decline_production or netback by naming the specific valuation method. However, it does not elaborate on what PV-10 entails beyond the mention of discounting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. The description does not mention alternatives or conditions under which this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states the output is a positive number; it does not mention whether it is read-only, data requirements, or edge cases. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence is brief but omits necessary details, making it under-specified. It is not optimally concise as it sacrifices clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so the description should explain return format. It does not. Also missing context on input format assumptions (e.g., array of returns). Overall incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%; the description fails to explain either parameter. 'returns' and 'confidence' are not described, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it computes a loss threshold (positive number) from historical data at a given confidence, which distinguishes it from parametric VaR (risk_assessment__parametric_var) by emphasizing history. The purpose is specific: historical Value at Risk.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like parametric_var or annualized_volatility. The description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the payment structure but omits critical details such as output format (e.g., table of payments), assumptions (e.g., monthly compounding), and handling of edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, but it under-specifies the tool's behavior. It is front-loaded with the category but does not earn its place by providing sufficient information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (4 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the return value, constraints, or how to interpret the schedule.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description fails to explain any parameter meaning. Terms like 'io_months' and 'amort_months' are implied but not defined, leaving the agent without necessary context for invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool produces a monthly payment schedule with an interest-only period followed by level amortization. This distinguishes it from other debt-related tools, though the verb is implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aro_computation__accretion_schedule or lease_accounting__amortization_schedule. The description lacks any contextual selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as computational assumptions beyond the formula, side effects (none expected), or authentication needs. It relies on domain knowledge about Hamada's formula.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) but lacks structural elements like a separate usage section. The bracket prefix '[wacc-computation]' adds minimal value. It is not well-organized for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and sparse description, the tool's behavior is under-specified. An AI agent would need to infer the intended output (unlevered beta) and formula details, making it incomplete for effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has three parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no additional meaning. Parameter names are self-explanatory but no format details (e.g., tax rate as decimal vs percentage) are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs 'Hamada unlevering' with an assumption of zero debt beta, which is a specific financial calculation. It identifies the input parameters indirectly via the formula context. However, it lacks an explicit statement like 'computes unlevered beta' to distinguish from sibling 'relever_beta'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'relever_beta' or other wacc-related tools. The only contextual clue is the assumption note, but no explicit when/when-not instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'rough funding requirement,' which implies a computation but does not mention whether it is destructive, authorization needs, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence, which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It could be improved without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide enough context. It doesn't explain the output or the role of the optional days parameter, making it insufficient for proper use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should explain the parameters. It only mentions 'cycle length' (likely ccc_days) but omits revenue and the optional days parameter, adding no value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it computes a rough funding requirement from cycle length, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cash_conversion_cycle that compute the cycle itself. However, 'rough funding requirement' is still vague and could be more specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative working capital tools. It does not explain prerequisites or exclude invalid use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like the Gaussian assumption, but it only says 'Gaussian VaR' without elaboration. No info on limitations or edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise, the description is too brief for a 4-parameter tool with no annotations. It omits crucial details, sacrificing completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the distribution assumption, interpretation of VaR, or parameter dependencies.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the 4 parameters (mu, sigma, confidence, portfolio_value). The agent cannot infer their meaning or units.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it's a one-period Gaussian VaR in currency terms, distinguishing it from siblings like historical_var and annualized_volatility. The verb 'VaR' and resource 'currency terms' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like historical_var or other risk measures. No mention of prerequisites such as normality assumption or data requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Positive = compliant,' which hints at the return value but does not describe side effects, permissions, or data access. The mutation potential is unclear (likely read-only but not stated).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences) with no wasted words, but it sacrifices essential information. It could add parameter details without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the three parameters and financial context, the description lacks formula explanation, return format, and usage context. No output schema or additional notes are provided, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should define the three parameters. It does not mention actual, covenant, or lower_is_better. The agent must guess their meanings from the tool name and schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it computes headroom as a fraction of covenant level and clarifies that positive values indicate compliance. This gives a clear purpose and distinguishes it from sibling credit analysis tools like dscr or interest_coverage. However, it could be more specific about the formula (e.g., (actual - covenant) / covenant).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like covenant buffer check or other coverage ratios. The description does not provide context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would need to infer usage from the name and sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description offers only a minimal hint about input structure (lots in acquisition order) but does not disclose computational behavior, return format, or any side effects (e.g., mutability). With no annotations, the agent is left largely uninformed about how the tool behaves beyond its name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one short sentence), which is efficient but comes at the cost of missing critical information. It could be longer to be more useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, and only partial description of one of three parameters, the description is insufficient for an AI agent to confidently use the tool correctly. It lacks details on expected input formats, return value, and prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only the 'lots' parameter is partially described (as containing units and unit_cost in acquisition order). The 'sale_price' and 'units_sold' parameters are not explained at all, despite 0% schema description coverage. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The name explicitly includes 'realized_gain_fifo' and the description mentions 'lots: (units, unit_cost) in acquisition order,' which together strongly imply that this tool computes realized gains using the FIFO method. However, the description does not explicitly state the tool's output or confirm the calculation, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like crypto_accounting__cost_less_impairment or fair_value_remeasurement. The description lacks any context about appropriate scenarios or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the weight constraint. Missing details on side effects, permissions, or return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but lacks structure (e.g., no separate lines for purpose, parameters, constraints). Could benefit from bullet points but is not overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema provided. Description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a single ECL value or weighted sum). For a computation tool, this is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters (scenario_ecls and weights) have no descriptions in schema. Description only mentions the weight constraint but not the expected format or structure. Scenario_ecls is completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly indicates probability-weighted ECL across macro scenarios, distinguishing it from sibling tools like single-period or lifetime ECL. However, it does not explicitly state the action verb (e.g., 'calculates'), but the context implies computation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Only constraint given is that weights must sum to 1. No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ecl_single_period or lifetime_ecl, nor any context about prerequisites or scenario dependencies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the formula and does not cover important aspects like whether the tool computes each component separately, returns them, or just the final ROE. There is no mention of error handling, data requirements, or output structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence containing the core formula. This is appropriate for a simple calculation tool, though slightly more structure (e.g., listing components) could improve usability without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return values (e.g., does it return intermediate margins or just the final ROE?). The formula alone is insufficient for complete understanding, especially with 4 parameters and no documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not provide any help beyond the formula. It does not explain what net_income, revenue, assets, or equity represent in the context of DuPont analysis (e.g., average vs. end of period). The agent receives no semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as performing DuPont analysis (ROE decomposition into margin, asset turnover, leverage). It is specific about the formula and distinguishes from broader financial ratio tools like profitability_ratios or liquidity_ratios found in siblings. However, it could be more explicit that this tool calculates all three components and returns the final ROE.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., profitability_ratios for net profit margin, or other decomposition tools). There is no mention of prerequisite calculations or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the formula alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full transparency burden. It does not disclose that the tool is a pure calculation (read-only), the formula used, or any side effects. It only states the output concept.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) but lacks necessary details. It front-loads the category, which helps, but it is too sparse to be actionable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify inputs and return value. It fails to describe the formula, parameter units (e.g., percentage as decimal?), or the output format. Incomplete for a calculation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to parameters. It does not explain ic_sale_price, cost, or pct_still_held. The names are partially self-explanatory but insufficient for unambiguous use.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: computing profit to eliminate on intercompany inventory still held. The leading category [intercompany-accounting] and the specific phrasing distinguish it from sibling tools like elimination_entry or match_balances.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as intercompany_accounting__elimination_entry. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the method (straight-line) and the absence of residual value, but does not explain how the calculation is performed, whether it handles partial periods, or any assumptions. Without annotations, the agent lacks behavioral context such as error conditions or precision details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key characteristics. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the domain tag. However, it could be expanded slightly to include parameter information without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not specify that the output is likely the annual depreciation expense, nor does it provide any formula or calculation details. The agent lacks full context to interpret results correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions for the two required parameters ('rou_asset' and 'term_years'), and the tool description does not mention them at all. With 0% schema coverage, the description must clarify parameter meanings, but it fails to do so, leaving the agent to guess what these parameters represent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Straight-line ROU depreciation (no residual)', clearly indicating the tool computes depreciation for a right-of-use asset using the straight-line method with no residual value. It distinguishes from sibling tools like lease_accounting__amortization_schedule and lease_accounting__lease_liability by specifying the type of depreciation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other depreciation methods or the lease_accounting__amortization_schedule. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist. The description only states 'Founder ownership after the round' without explaining what the tool does beyond that. It does not disclose behavioral traits like required inputs, return value, or assumptions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (one short sentence) but lacks structure and essential information. Conciseness here is more about brevity than effective communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing output schema and annotations. The description does not specify what the tool returns or how the calculation works. For a simple tool, more context is needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description does not explain the three parameters (founder_pct, new_money, post_money). Parameter names provide some hint but no confirmation of their meaning or units.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Founder ownership after the round' combined with the name 'dilution' clearly indicates the tool computes post-funding founder ownership. It distinguishes from sibling startup valuation tools (Berkus, VC method) which focus on valuation methods rather than dilution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as other startup valuation tools. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states what is computed but does not disclose behavioral traits such as output format, assumptions (e.g., no dilution), or whether it returns both post-money and ownership. No annotations exist to fill gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise line, front-loading the key formula. However, it may be too terse to be informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks explanations of inputs, outputs, assumptions, and usage context, making it inadequate for agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to define parameters. The formula uses names like 'exit_value' but does not explain their meaning or units, leaving the agent without necessary context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific formula for post-money valuation and ownership percentage, indicating the tool calculates these values. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'vc_method_irr' by omitting IRR, though not explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like startup_valuation__berkus or vc_method_irr. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or side effects. The verb 'computation' implies non-destructive, but this is not explicit, leaving ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (10 words) with a namespace prefix. It is concise but lacks informational density. For the complexity of the tool, it could be slightly longer to cover key details without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a complex nested input, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't describe return values, assumptions, or input format. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the seven parameters. Terms like 'tax_rate' and 'debt_value' are named but lack context on format (e.g., percentage vs decimal) or units. The description mentions 'market-value weights' but doesn't connect to the input fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it computes WACC using market-value weights, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cost_of_equity_capm and relever_beta by focusing on the final WACC calculation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for different weight bases (e.g., book-value weights). The description is self-contained but lacks comparative context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It reveals a formula detail (sum over periods, t starts at 1) but omits side effects, safety profile, assumptions (e.g., constant EIR), or return value format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key computation detail. No redundant information, but could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema; description does not explain what the tool returns. Lacks explanation of input parameters and their roles. Incomplete for a complex financial calculation with 4 inputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; parameters are not described. The description mentions 'marginal-PD-weighted' which aligns with 'marginal_pds' but provides no meaning for 'eir', 'eads', 'lgds'. Fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it computes Lifetime ECL as a sum of marginal-PD-weighted discounted losses per period, which is clear and specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ecl_single_period' via the 'Lifetime' qualifier, but does not explicitly differentiate from other ECL tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection among sibling ECL computation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the assumption of constant exponential decline but does not disclose limitations (e.g., does not handle other decline models), what the output represents (single value or array), or any edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail for a tool with no schema descriptions. It sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not specify units, output format, or how the result should be interpreted in a real-world oil and gas context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention any parameters or their units (e.g., initial_rate in barrels/year, decline as a decimal). The parameter names alone are insufficient for correct usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool computes annual production volumes under constant exponential decline, using a specific verb (compute), resource (production volumes), and model (exponential decline). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like netback, pv10, and reserves_to_production.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It only notes that inputs are decimals, but does not disclose output format, whether validation occurs, or any side effects. For a calculation tool, it lacks essential behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the namespace. It is concise and wastes no words, but omits necessary details like the formula or output; still, it is appropriately minimal for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the CAPM formula, return type, or prerequisites. It is insufficient to fully specify the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only states 'All inputs as decimals' without defining individual parameters like risk_free, beta, or erp. The names are standard but not elaborated, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'CAPM cost of equity' clearly states the tool computes the cost of equity using the CAPM model. The namespace prefix [wacc-computation] groups it with related tools. Purpose is specific and distinct from siblings like unlever_beta or relever_beta.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain that this is for estimating cost of equity via CAPM, nor does it differentiate from related tools such as wacc_computation__wacc or the beta adjustment tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions priority order and recovery per tranche but omits details like whether the tool is read-only, requires specific authorization, or has side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but includes a redundant '[debt-restructuring]' prefix. The core sentence is concise, but the prefix wastes space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided; the description only says 'returns recovery per tranche' without specifying format or structure. Additional context like return type or example would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains that 'tranches' are (name, claim) pairs in priority order, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, 'enterprise_value' remains unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns recovery per tranche in priority order, using a waterfall structure. It distinguishes from siblings like debt_restructuring__haircut_pct or debt_restructuring__npv_of_terms, which focus on different aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not indicate any prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the bisection method requirement and the sign-change precondition, but no annotations exist. Does not mention side effects (likely none), error handling, or output nature beyond the computation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (one sentence), which is efficient but omits critical details. Front-loads the method, but missing parameter and behavior info makes it less helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no annotations, and only 0% schema coverage. Description does not cover return format, constraints beyond sign change, or edge cases. Incomplete for a 4-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. Description only mentions lo and hi; cashflows and tol are not explained. Falls short of adding meaning for 4 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it computes IRR using bisection method, specifying the requirement of a sign change over an interval [lo, hi]. However, it does not explicitly define IRR as internal rate of return, which may be assumed but could be clearer for unfamiliar agents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other investment analysis siblings like NPV or payback period. Lacks any context about prerequisites or preferred scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the basic difference between Roth and traditional contributions but omits behavioral details such as assumptions (e.g., constant tax rates, contributions at start), limitations (e.g., no contribution limits), or how the comparison is performed. With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden and falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (2 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 5 required parameters and no other documentation, missing important details that would justify its length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not define the output format, parameter meanings, or any caveats, making it insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the role of each of the 5 required parameters (contribution, years, gross_annual_rate, current_tax_rate, future_tax_rate). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to provide any parameter-level meaning beyond the high-level concept.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Compare after-tax wealth from Roth vs. traditional contribution.' It specifies the verb 'compare' and the resource 'Roth vs. traditional contribution', distinguishing it from sibling tools like after_tax_future_value or tax_drag_cost.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or cases where this tool is preferred over sibling tools like tax_efficient_investing__after_tax_future_value.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the calculation type but does not reveal traits like idempotency, error handling, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is too brief and could benefit from additional context without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 required parameters, no output schema, and a calculation tool, the description should explain the formula or expected behavior more thoroughly. It is incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only hints at inflation and discounting without explaining each parameter's role. The names (current_cost, inflation, discount, years) are suggestive but insufficient for precise usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it computes the present value (PV) of an inflated future restoration cost, specifying the verb (PV) and the resource (restoration cost). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'accretion_schedule' and 'revision_adjustment' by focusing on the initial ARO calculation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to apply inflation and discounting or prerequisites. The description lacks context for usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the operation. It does not disclose side effects, such as whether the tool is read-only or if it modifies data. For a calculation tool, read-only behavior can be inferred but not confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It conveys essential information efficiently, though it could be slightly more specific about the calculation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool (two parameters, no output schema), the description provides adequate context for what the tool does. However, it lacks output format (e.g., ratio as decimal or percentage) and does not mention any boundary conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'capital' can be CET1/Tier1/Total and 'rwa' is risk-weighted assets, adding meaningful context. However, it does not specify units, format, or constraints on these parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: computing capital ratio (CET1, Tier 1, or Total) against risk-weighted assets. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the types of capital, but the verb 'works for' is less precise than 'calculates'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative banking compliance tools like buffer_check or lcr. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states the method but does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., goodwill amount), any assumptions, or behavior beyond the annotation scope. No annotations are provided, so the description should carry the burden but fails to do so.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one line) but lacks essential details that would make it useful. It is not appropriately sized; conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of goodwill calculation, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, this description is insufficient. It does not explain the formula, expected result, or handle edge cases (e.g., zero NCI).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides zero information about the three parameters (pct_acquired, consideration, net_identifiable_assets). The agent receives no guidance on how to populate these fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Partial goodwill: NCI measured at proportionate share of net assets,' which is a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'corporate_consolidation__goodwill_full' (which uses fair value for NCI).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool is for partial goodwill measurement, but it does not explicitly contrast with the full goodwill method or provide when-to-use guidance. The agent would need prior knowledge to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must compensate. It fails to disclose what the tool computes (e.g., gain/loss), side effects, or limitations. The mention of US GAAP is insufficient without calculation details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with context prefix. Could be slightly expanded to include output or examples without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and minimal parameter info, the description is insufficient. Does not explain the return value, calculation steps, or how to apply the result in accounting.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter names 'carrying' and 'fair_value' are somewhat self-explanatory, and description implies they are inputs for fair value measurement. However, schema coverage is 0%, and description does not explicitly define each parameter's meaning or units.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it measures fair value under US GAAP ASU 2023-08, specifying the accounting standard. However, it does not explicitly state that it computes a remeasurement gain or loss, which would be more precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like cost_less_impairment or realized_gain_fifo. It only states the accounting standard, not context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the general calculation, but fails to mention sign conventions, handling of negative differences, or other nuances important for financial computations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence), which is good, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It front-loads the key concept but omits parameter guidance and usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It provides a high-level purpose but lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral constraints, and how it relates to other deferred tax tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'temp_diff' and 'tax_rate' implicitly but provides no details on their meaning, units, or expected signs, leaving the agent with insufficient information to pass correct values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool computes deferred tax balance: DTL for taxable differences and DTA for deductible ones at enacted rate. It uses specific accounting terminology and distinguishes from sibling tools like temporary_difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have temporary differences and need deferred tax balance, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provides any exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic purpose and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or any side effects. For a calculation tool, this is minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence, which is efficient but may be too brief. It includes a domain tag '[earned-value-mgmt]' at the start. However, it does not provide enough detail for an agent to fully understand the tool without external domain knowledge.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of earned value management and the lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the formula, assumptions, or how the result should be interpreted. The agent would need significant domain knowledge to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 5 parameters (bac, ac, ev, cpi, spi) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no descriptions. The tool description does not explain any parameter meanings, constraints, or relationships beyond the name. The phrase 'cost and schedule performance' hints at cpi and spi but does not elaborate on the other parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that this tool calculates EAC (Estimate at Completion) considering both cost and schedule performance (CPI and SPI). It distinguishes from sibling tools like eac_cpi (only cost) and eac_atypical (atypical variance) by explicitly mentioning both factors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when both cost and schedule performance affect remaining work, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like eac_cpi or tcpi. The context from sibling tool names provides some guidance, but the description itself lacks explicit usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals it computes a share but omits details like handling of non-numeric values, output format, or assumptions (e.g., data must be numeric).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence, front-loading the function and context. However, the brevity sacrifices necessary detail for a statistical tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, low parameter coverage, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks output format, data requirements, and interpretation of the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'base' as the divisor but fails to describe the 'values' parameter. The meaning of 'share' (proportion, ratio?) is ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool computes the share of amounts that are exact multiples of a specified base and identifies it as a fraud tell, distinguishing it from sibling tools like Benford test or first digit analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as benford_test or first_digit. The description mentions 'fraud tell' but does not specify contexts or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description mentions 'fractional, undiscounted' but no annotations exist. It omits behavioral details like handling of non-recovery, required sign conventions, or return value for edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence is concise but lacks essential input details. It could be improved without becoming verbose by adding param format guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations or output schema, the description is too minimal. For a tool with one critical parameter, it fails to explain input format, assumptions, and return value, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has one param 'cashflows' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain expected structure (e.g., negative first element, positive inflows) or units, leaving the agent to infer format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool calculates years to recover initial outflow, specifying fractional and undiscounted, which distinguishes it from siblings like NPV and IRR that consider time value of money.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as npv, irr, or profitability_index. The description lacks context about appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as handling of zero production (division by zero), rounding, or output format. The minimal description does not compensate for the lack of annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core purpose given the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter calculation with no output schema, the description should explain the formula (e.g., reserves / annual_production) or output meaning. It currently only states 'in years', which is insufficient for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names 'reserves' and 'annual_production', leaving units, scale, and constraints undocumented. The agent cannot infer necessary details from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'R/P life in years' clearly indicates the tool computes the reserves-to-production ratio, a standard metric. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pv10' or 'netback'. However, it assumes domain knowledge without explaining the acronym or formula.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The context implies it is for calculating R/P life from reserves and production data, but no guidance on scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions growth-adjusted calculation but fails to disclose rounding behavior, handling if floor is never reached, or input validation. Users cannot anticipate tool behavior beyond the single sentence.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single efficient sentence, but lacks structure like bullet points or sections to organize information. Under-specification reduces effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. Description does not explain return format, error conditions, or parameter constraints (e.g., integer vs float). Incomplete for a moderate-complexity tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must explain each parameter. Only three of five parameters are implied ('cash', 'floor', 'monthly growth'), and no explicit definitions are given for 'current_burn' or 'max_months'. Missing parameter meanings and optionality.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool calculates months until cash drops below floor, accounting for monthly burn growth. It distinguishes from siblings like 'simple_runway' by explicitly mentioning growth-adjusted calculation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'simple_runway' or 'net_burn'. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, mutates data, requires permissions, or returns a specific output. The description is too sparse.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices necessary detail. While it is front-loaded with purpose, it fails to cover usage or parameters, making it under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and incomplete parameter semantics, the description does not adequately inform the agent about what the tool returns or other contextual details needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% property description coverage, and the description only vaguely implies that ssps represents standalone selling prices and total_price is the total transaction price. It does not explain the format or structure of the ssps object, leaving ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'allocate' and the resource (transaction price to performance obligations) using a specific method ('pro-rata to standalone selling prices'). It distinguishes from sibling revenue recognition tools like contract_liability or over_time_revenue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use or when not to use, and no comparison to alternatives. The description lacks context for an agent to decide between this and sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral insight that AR/inventory increases consume cash, which is important for the indirect method. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose other behaviors like required inputs, mutability, or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (two brief sentences) with no fluff. However, the structure could be improved (e.g., separate purpose from parameter tips).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without output schema, the tool's return value is entirely unspecified. With 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers only a fraction of what an agent needs to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only explains the meaning of delta_receivables and delta_inventory implicitly. It does not describe net_income, depreciation, other_noncash, or delta_payables, leaving most parameters unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description mentions operating cash flow context via 'Deltas are (closing - opening)' and identifies that AR/inventory increases consume cash, which hints at the indirect method. However, it does not explicitly state 'Calculate operating cash flow' or clearly link to the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like financing_cash_flow or investing_cash_flow. No when-not-to-use or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as input format (decimal vs percentage), formula used, or return value characteristics. For a tool with no annotations, this lack of detail is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the category. However, it is too brief, leaving out necessary details, so it does not fully earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple two-parameter input and no output schema, the description should explain units and formulas. It fails to do so, leaving the user guessing about input formats (e.g., decimal or percentage). Incomplete for a tool that requires precise inputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not clarify the meaning or format of the two parameters (tax_free_yield, marginal_tax_rate). It merely repeats the tool's purpose without adding semantic value beyond parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states what the tool calculates: 'Gross yield a taxable bond must offer to match a tax-free bond.' This is a specific verb (calculate equivalent yield) and resource (bond yield), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like after_tax_future_value or roth_vs_traditional.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tax_free_future_value). No mention of prerequisites, assumptions, or scenarios where this calculation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose but does not describe the calculation logic, assumptions, or limitations. For a tool that computes a present value saving, details like formula or edge cases are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. While very concise, it avoids redundancy and is easy to parse. However, it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema and the tool's computational nature, the description should clarify the return value (e.g., a numeric present value saving) and any underlying assumptions. It does not mention the output format or formula, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names three parameters (tax_amount, years_deferred, discount_rate) and implies their roles through the tool's purpose. However, it does not explain units, expected ranges, or how they interact, providing only marginal added meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it calculates 'PV saving from postponing a tax payment', indicating a specific financial metric. The verb and resource are clear, and the name 'deferral_benefit' helps differentiate from other tax planning tools like marginal_rate or effective_rate, though no explicit sibling differentiation is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or limitations. Among siblings like tax_planning__marginal_rate, the context for choosing one over the other is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description accurately represents a simple ratio computation without side effects, but lacks any behavioral nuances or edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence. No redundancy, but could include more context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple ratio with two number inputs, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention output format (ratio, percentage, etc.) or potential division-by-zero issues.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description hints that cfads is numerator and debt_service denominator, but doesn't explain required units, formatting, or valid ranges.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the formula (CFADS / Debt Service) and implies DSCR calculation. It differentiates from sibling coverage ratios like interest coverage, though not explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use DSCR versus other credit analysis tools like interest coverage or covenant headroom. No prerequisites or when-not scenarios mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only describes the calculation assumption, not side effects, read-only nature, or output format. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (single sentence). It lacks structure but is front-loaded with the essential purpose. It could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description does not provide enough context for an AI agent to understand the return value, assumptions, or prerequisites. It is incomplete for a financial computation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters 'bac' (Budget at Completion) or 'cpi' (Cost Performance Index). The description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool computes 'EAC assuming current cost performance continues', which is a specific verb (EAC) and resource (current cost performance). The prefix '[earned-value-mgmt]' and the contrast with sibling tools like 'eac_atypical' and 'eac_combined' makes the purpose distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when 'current cost performance continues', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like eac_atypical or eac_combined. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the formula without explaining behavior like division by zero, units, or that 'capex' is assumed maintenance capex. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand potential edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using a single line with no redundant words. It could be improved by adding a verb, but it efficiently conveys the core formula.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mathematical tool with no output schema, the formula is largely complete. However, it lacks context about the output (e.g., ratio interpretation, typical ranges) and error handling. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not exemplary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description is essential. It maps each parameter to the formula terms: ebitda to EBITDA, capex to maintenance capex, fixed_charges to interest+scheduled principal+leases. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides the formula for fixed charge coverage ratio, which implicitly defines the purpose. However, it lacks a verb like 'calculates' to explicitly state the action. The formula distinguishes it from sibling coverage ratios like DSCR or interest coverage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative coverage ratios (e.g., DSCR, interest coverage). There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this ratio is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose assumptions (e.g., payment frequency, compounding method) or side effects. It only states the formula without behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. No wasted words; front-loaded with the domain tag and clear computation description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and zero parameter documentation in the schema, the description lacks details on return values, assumptions, and edge cases. The tool might benefit from clarifying whether payments are annual, what discount rate format is expected, etc.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds minimal parameter context by mentioning 'interest-only payments' and 'bullet principal', but does not explain each parameter's role, units, or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the exact computation: present value of interest-only payments and bullet principal at a discount rate. The tool name and context (debt restructuring) clearly distinguish it from siblings like haircut_pct and waterfall.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where NPV of terms is appropriate or contrast it with other debt restructuring tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the core assumption (budgeted rates, one-off variance), which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or output format. For a computational tool, this is minimally adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the skill prefix, and concise. However, it is too brief, sacrificing clarity. It uses 12 words, but could add parameter explanations without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 required parameters, no output schema), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what EAC is, what the inputs represent, or what the output is. The assumption is stated but not enough for an agent to use it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does not define bac, ac, or ev. The only hint is 'remaining work at budgeted rates', which vaguely relates to bac. Without parameter semantics, the agent cannot correctly populate inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that this tool computes Estimate at Completion (EAC) assuming remaining work at budgeted rates, with the variance being one-off. It distinguishes from siblings like earned_value_mgmt__eac_cpi which uses cost performance index, and earned_value_mgmt__eac_combined which combines both. The specific condition 'variance was one-off' clarifies the atypical assumption.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly suggests using this tool when variance is one-off and remaining work is at budgeted rates, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks direct comparison to sibling tools like eac_cpi or tcpi, leaving the agent to infer the use case from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the purpose without disclosing behavioral traits such as assumptions (e.g., compounding frequency, constant rate), edge cases, or determinism.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a prefix, which is concise but underspecifies key details. It is efficient but lacks necessary additional information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, calculation method, or underlying assumptions needed for accurate use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'target' and 'principal' but does not explain units, formats (e.g., annual_rate as decimal or percentage), or constraints like positive numbers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'needed' (implying calculation) and resource 'monthly contribution' to reach a target given principal. It uniquely distinguishes from sibling retirement-planning tools like future_value or nest_egg_target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like future_value or nest_egg_target. Usage context is implied by the financial goal, but exclusions and prerequisites are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists inputs but does not describe whether the tool is read-only, mutates any data, or has side effects. The term 'projection' suggests it is a calculation, but details on constraints or expected behavior are lacking.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, using a single line and a list. It is front-loaded with the tool category in brackets. However, it lacks a separate description of the output or clear sentence structure, which could be improved without adding much length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of financial projection and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to chain multiple years, or what 'linked' means. Sibling tools exist for verification, but this core projection tool needs more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by listing specific sub-fields for both parameters (e.g., 'prior: revenue, cash, ppe, debt, equity, retained_earnings'). However, it does not explain the types, units, or required sub-structure, leaving ambiguity about the exact format expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a 'minimal linked projection' for three-statement modeling, listing inputs for prior period and assumptions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'balance_check' or 'cash_ties' by focusing on projecting a year of financial statements, though it could more explicitly state the output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool is used to project a single year of financial statements, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., multi-year projections or other three-statement tools). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description only states it computes P&L but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like deterministic calculation, output format, or side effects. The agent has little insight into what happens when the tool is invoked.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the domain tag. It is efficient but arguably too brief; a bit more detail would improve clarity without much cost.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a financial calculation with no output schema, the description should specify what the tool returns (e.g., numeric P&L value, currency). The current description does not explain the output format or interpretation, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'forward purchase' and 'buying at maturity spot', providing context for the parameters notional_foreign, contracted_forward, and spot_at_maturity. However, it doesn't explicitly define each parameter's role, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool computes P&L of a forward purchase vs buying at maturity spot. It identifies the financial computation and distinguishes from sibling tools like treasury_management__cash_position. However, it could be more explicit about the exact output (gain/loss).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when computing hedge P&L but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names mentioned, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only names the formula without discussing assumptions (e.g., constant debt), edge cases, return format, or limitations. This is insufficient for a computational tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one line) but under-informative. It does not waste words but fails to provide necessary details, so it does not fully earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain the return value (presumably relevered beta). It does not. It also lacks differentiation from siblings and parameter context, making it incomplete for a 3-parameter computational tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the tool description does not explain any parameter. The names 'tax_rate', 'debt_to_equity', and 'unlevered_beta' are standard but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs Hamada relevering to a target capital structure, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'unlever_beta' and 'cost_of_equity_capm' by naming the method and direction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for relevering beta but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. siblings like 'unlever_beta' or 'cost_of_equity_capm'. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the result is a P&L or OCI impact, but does not reveal if the tool modifies data, requires authorization, or has side effects. The read-only or mutating nature is ambiguous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with domain prefix. It is concise and front-loaded, though more detail could be added without violating conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks context about the return value format (e.g., currency unit, net vs. gross), and does not specify if the impact is an absolute change or rate. No output schema exists to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters (new_rate, old_rate, temp_diff). The input schema provides names and types, but their roles in the calculation are not clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool computes the P&L or OCI impact of remeasuring deferred tax at a new enacted rate, with a domain prefix. It distinguishes from sibling tools like deferred_tax_balance or effective_tax_rate by focusing on rate changes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when tax rates change, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid it compared to other deferred tax tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only provides the formula but omits critical details like whether the tool is read-only, authorization requirements, rate limits, or assumptions (e.g., PD/LGD ranges). This is insufficient for a computation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and formula, making it quick to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description lacks details about output format, constraints on input values, and any default behavior. It is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description maps the formula to the parameters (PD, LGD, EAD, discount). This adds some context beyond the schema, but it does not explain units, valid ranges, or how the discount factor is applied (e.g., default value if missing). Partial compensation for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool computes ECL for one period using the formula PD x LGD x EAD x discount. It distinguishes from sibling tools like lifetime_ecl (multi-period) and scenario_weighted_ecl (scenario-based), providing a specific verb and resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the formula without mentioning appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling names imply single-period vs. multi-period, but the description itself does not clarify.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It states basic purpose but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what output format to expect, side effects, or if it requires specific input formats. Only a minimal functional description is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with a useful tag. It is concise and efficient, but could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., listing key parameters or output). No extra words, but some necessary detail is missing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and three required parameters, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain return values, assumptions (e.g., payments at end of period), or limitations, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fails to clarify the meaning of 'payment' (annual?), 'rate' (interest rate?), or 'term_years' (integer years?). The names alone are insufficient, and the description adds no additional parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool computes a 'year-by-year liability rollforward for payments in arrears,' specifying the resource (liability rollforward) and action (generating schedule). It adds context with '[lease-accounting]' and distinguishes from siblings like lease_liability and rou_depreciation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for generating an amortization schedule for leases with payments in arrears, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. others (e.g., lease_liability for initial liability, aro_computation__accretion_schedule for similar rollforward). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'FV of a lump sum in a taxable account where gains are taxed annually.' It does not disclose assumptions (e.g., compounding frequency, timing of tax payments), edge cases, or limitations. The agent lacks essential behavioral context for correct invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, the prefix '[tax-efficient-investing]' is redundant given the tool name already includes the module. This wastes a few characters but does not harm clarity significantly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how the formula works, what the return value is, or how to interpret the inputs. An agent would need additional context (e.g., documentation) to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It does not describe any of the four parameters individually (principal, gross_annual_rate, annual_tax_rate, years). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but their units, valid ranges, or interrelationships are omitted, leaving ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it computes the future value of a lump sum in a taxable account with annual taxation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tax_free_future_value (tax-free) and tax_drag_cost (different concept). The verb 'FV' is understood as 'calculate future value', making it specific and actionable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for taxable accounts with annual tax on gains, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tax_free_future_value or tax_drag_cost. No exclusion criteria or context is provided, leaving the agent to infer based on sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The formula suggests a deterministic calculation with no side effects, which is transparent. However, it does not disclose input constraints (e.g., positive rates, day count conventions) or whether any implicit assumptions (like simple interest) apply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, using a single line with a formula. It is efficient, though a brief clarifying sentence about the output would improve clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given five parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It omits documentation for the optional 'basis' parameter and does not describe the return value or any edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description references spot, domestic_rate, foreign_rate, and days in the formula, adding some meaning. But it does not explain the 'basis' parameter at all, and fails to specify units (e.g., percentage vs decimal) or the day count fraction (e.g., days/365).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the formula for covered interest parity and the resource being computed (forward rate). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cash_position or hedge_pnl which compute different treasury metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only presents the formula, leaving the agent to infer usage context without any directional advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core computation (writedown or 0) but omits details on output type, negative values, prerequisites, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and return condition. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description fails to specify the output format (e.g., number type, sign convention) or edge cases. For a simple tool, more completeness is expected to ensure proper use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds minimal detail: it mentions 'cost' and 'NRV' but does not clarify their units, allowed ranges, or whether any adjustments are applied. The meaning is largely left to parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it computes an IAS 2 lower of cost and NRV writedown, returning 0 if NRV >= cost. It specifies the standard (IAS 2) and the resource (inventory writedown), distinguishing it from sibling tools that compute COGS.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for inventory writedown calculations but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other inventory costing tools or depreciation tools. No exclusions or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the calculation type but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as mutability, side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the namespace, but wastes no words. It could be improved by adding a bit more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, assumptions (e.g., monthly compounding), or that monthly_contribution is optional.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. The description adds some meaning by naming 'lump sum', 'regular monthly contributions', and 'compounded monthly', linking to principal, monthly_contribution, and compounding frequency. However, it does not explain individual parameters' roles, units, or optionality sufficiently.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it calculates the Future Value of a lump sum plus regular monthly contributions compounded monthly. It uses a specific verb 'FV' and resource '[retirement-planning]', and differentiates from sibling tools like nest_egg_target or safe_withdrawal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is implied, but there are no when/when-not statements or references to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the basic transformation (splitting a deferred receipt) but does not disclose the calculation method (e.g., effective interest method), assumptions, or any side effects. It is minimally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the domain tag and immediately states the action. Every word is necessary and no extraneous information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not specify the output format (e.g., whether a map or separate values) or cover edge cases, leaving the agent with uncertainty.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must explain the parameters. However, it does not mention deferred_price, rate, or years by name, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone. The output context ('cash selling price and interest') provides some hint but is incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Split') and resource ('deferred receipt') and clearly states the two resulting components ('cash selling price (revenue)' and 'interest'), making the purpose unambiguous. Among sibling revenue recognition tools, this is distinct as it deals with financing components.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like allocate_transaction_price or contract_liability. It does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the formula, which is the core behavior. However, no annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention potential constraints like unit assumptions (e.g., coverage_pct as decimal vs percentage) or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that efficiently communicates the formula and purpose with no redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It lacks input formatting, edge cases, return value specification, and any operational context for a calculation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning beyond parameter names. It names the variables in the formula but does not clarify types, units (e.g., loan in currency units, coverage_pct as percentage), or constraints like non-negative values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear formula: 'Shares under warrant = (loan x coverage%) / strike price,' which directly defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from other venture_debt tools by naming the specific output and its components.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like venture_debt__payment_schedule or venture_debt__total_cost_of_debt. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for the calculation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the core behavior (flagging points > threshold sigmas from trailing-window mean) but omits edge cases like incomplete windows, NaN handling, or array start behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence with a category prefix. Efficient but would benefit from parameter descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the algorithm roughly but fails to detail parameters or return value, making it insufficient for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. The description vaguely implies 'window' and 'threshold' as parameters via 'trailing-window mean' and 'threshold sigmas', but does not explicitly describe 'values', 'window', or 'threshold'. An agent lacks parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'Flag points' and the resource 'points' from the 'values' array. It distinguishes the tool from siblings (iqr_anomalies, zscore_anomalies) by using a trailing-window mean and sigma threshold.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for detecting outliers based on rolling statistics but does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternatives. Given sibling anomaly tools, this is a gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must cover behavior. It explains the algorithm and what is returned, but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., empty array, non-numeric values) or potential side effects. For a simple statistical function, it is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence front-loaded with the domain tag, concise and efficient. Every word adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple statistical tool, the description covers the core logic and output (indices). However, without output schema, it could specify the return format (e.g., list of integers). Edge cases and limitations are missing, but the complexity is low.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It clarifies 'threshold' as standard deviations, but does not specify the expected type of 'values' (presumably numeric array) or any defaults. This leaves ambiguity for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns 'indices of values beyond threshold standard deviations from the mean,' specifying the exact statistical test. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like IQR (uses interquartile range) and rolling deviation, which use different methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use Z-score over alternatives (e.g., IQR for skewed data). The description does not mention assumptions like normal distribution or provide context for selection among similar anomaly detection tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only describes the basic operation without mentioning side effects (e.g., mutation, read-only), error handling, performance characteristics, or what happens when no combination is found. This leaves the agent inadequately informed about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the core function with no extraneous words. It is well-structured and efficiently uses space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (one-to-many matching, four parameters, nested objects), the description is too brief. It lacks information about return values, parameter constraints (e.g., positive amounts, integer limits), and edge cases (no match, multiple matches). With no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains that 'target' is the amount to match and 'candidates' are items to combine, providing basic meaning. However, it does not clarify 'tol' (likely tolerance) or 'max_combo' (maximum number of candidates), which are critical for correct usage. The description adds some value but falls short of fully compensating for the schema deficit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find a combination of candidates summing to the target amount (batched settlements).' The verb 'Find' and specific resource 'combination of candidates summing to target amount' make it distinct from siblings like 'exact_match' and 'tolerance_match', which focus on single matches or tolerance-based matches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'batched settlements' implies a use case for reconciling batches where multiple items sum to a target, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'exact_match' or 'tolerance_match'. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses the basic behavior: pairing items within a tolerance and returning tuples. However, it does not detail the matching algorithm (e.g., greedy vs. optimal), handling of duplicates, or determinism, which are important for a reconciliation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that includes the tool's purpose, condition, and output. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., separating parameters and behavior).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a reconciliation matching tool and no output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks details on matching algorithm, edge cases, return format specifics, and prerequisites. The return 'returns (a, b, difference)' is helpful but insufficient for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description only mentions 'items' and 'amounts' without specifying the structure of arrays side_a and side_b. With 0% schema coverage, the description should explain what fields each item must contain (e.g., an amount field), but it does not. The tolerance parameter is vaguely described as '<= tol'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool pairs items from two sides with a tolerance condition and returns the matched pairs with the difference. It distinguishes from sibling tools like exact_match (exact equality) and one_to_many_match (one-to-many matching).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when amounts may differ by a small tolerance, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like exact_match or one_to_many_match. No exclusions or contextual guidance are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states that impairment is to the lowest observed price and no reversal above carrying cost, which is key. However, it does not mention whether the tool modifies data, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The behavior is partially transparent but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key caveat (simplified vs. IFRS). It is appropriately sized and front-loaded. Could benefit from explicit structure, but it is concise and not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return value (e.g., impairment amount, new carrying value), prerequisites (e.g., asset must be recorded at cost), or edge cases. The tool is simple, but the description leaves gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters beyond their names. It only lists 'cost', 'lowest_observed', and 'current_price' without clarifying units, periods for 'lowest_observed', or acceptable values. The description adds minimal semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as an impairment calculation under IAS 38 cost model for crypto assets. It specifies the verb 'impair' and the resource 'cost less impairment', and distinguishes from siblings like fair_value_remeasurement by referencing the cost model and reversal rules.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a hint about IFRS reversal rules but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other crypto-accounting tools. There is no guidance on prerequisites or context (e.g., for assets held under cost model vs. fair value model).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions purchases are 'in order' but lacks details on validation, sorting requirements, error handling, or side effects. For a computational tool, this is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the category and naming the method. It is brief but covers purpose and basic output, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description minimally states outputs (COGS and ending value) but omits format. Input structure is vaguely defined. Adequate for a simple computation but could be more specific.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds that purchases is a list of (units, unit_cost) pairs, providing structure beyond bare 'array' type. However, the structure is ambiguous (array of arrays or objects?) and units_sold receives no explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool calculates FIFO COGS, listing inputs (purchases with units and unit cost) and outputs (COGS and ending value). It clearly distinguishes from sibling costing methods by naming FIFO.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use FIFO vs other methods (LIFO, weighted average). The category '[inventory-costing]' and name imply context, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states 'allocate' but does not clarify if this is a read-only computation or has side effects. No mention of authentication, rate limits, or return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Efficiently communicates the core action and context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema or return value description. For a 2-param tool with a nested object and no annotations, more context about expected input structure and output would help. The description is minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It provides examples of drivers (revenue, units, hours) but does not explain the structure of the 'drivers' object or the meaning of 'shared_cost'. Partial improvement over bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Allocate', the resource 'shared cost pool', and the method 'pro-rata to a driver' with examples. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like product_pnl or unit_economics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for cost allocation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that matching is exact and each item used once, but does not specify behavior for multiple matches, conflicting matches, or the format of items. This lacks sufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and the complexity of array matching, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., paired items, unmatched items, status). It is incomplete for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and parameters are untyped arrays. The description adds that items have 'amount' and 'reference' fields, but does not detail the required structure or provide examples. The value added beyond the schema is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool pairs items with equal amount and reference, and each item is used once. The name 'exact_match' aligns, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like tolerance_match and one_to_many_match by specifying exact equality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when exact matching on amount and reference is needed) and distinguishes from siblings via the 'exact' qualifier. It could explicitly state alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it is a read operation ('Return') but does not disclose behavior on missing skill, missing template, or any other side effects. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with an example, no wasted words, and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic action and source. However, it lacks details on return format, error conditions, and potential variations (e.g., template naming). The example aids understanding but does not achieve full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. The description uses 'skill=' to give an example, implying the parameter is a skill name, and adds context 'from a skill's assets/'. However, it does not explicitly define the parameter format or constraints, providing only partial semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Return', the resource 'output template', and the source 'from a skill's assets/', with a concrete example. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_skill and get_standard.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to retrieve templates for a specific skill but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as get_skill or list_skills. The example helps but no contrast or usage context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the validation checks but does not describe side effects, error behavior, permissions, or rate limits. The agent is left guessing about the output format or what happens when validation fails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the essential information about the tool's purpose and input format. It is highly concise with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple validation tool, the description covers the core logic but omits the return value or response format. Since there is no output schema, the agent lacks full understanding of what the tool returns or how to interpret the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% required parameter 'lines' with no description. The description compensates by detailing the expected structure: a list of dicts with keys 'account' (str), 'dr' (float), 'cr' (float). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool validates journal entry lines by checking that debits equal credits and no line has both debit and credit. It specifies the input format and the validation rules, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'pro_rate_accrual' and 'reversal'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the other journal entry tools. It lacks context for when validation is needed or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the curve constraint (sum <=1) and residual as bad debt, which is good. However, it does not address idempotency, side effects, or safety. It is a computation, so likely safe, but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, highly concise. No redundant information. Front-loaded with main purpose, then curve detail. Efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description should provide complete context. It lacks details on input format for invoiced_by_month and expected output. Incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description adds partial meaning by mentioning 'invoiced_by_month' and 'curve' in context, but does not specify the expected format (e.g., JSON structure) for either parameter. Inadequate compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool converts invoicing into expected cash receipts using a lag distribution. It distinguishes from sibling burn rate tools by specifying the conversion process and explains the curve format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage by stating the function, but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that summaries have an as_of date and advises verification, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not mention that the tool is read-only, nor any other behavioral traits like authorization requirements or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences. It presents the core purpose immediately and adds a critical caution efficiently. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic purpose and data usage warning, but with no output schema, it omits details about the return structure (e.g., fields included in the summary). It also does not mention any constraints on parameter values or error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 0% description coverage for parameters. The description adds minimal meaning by giving an example (family and name) but does not explain valid values, constraints, or optionality beyond the schema's required fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Return a standards summary' with a specific verb and resource. The example 'family=\"ifrs\", name=\"ifrs-16\"' helps disambiguate from sibling tools like 'list_standards' which lists available standards, while this returns a single summary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving a specific standard summary, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_standards' or other get_* tools. The caution about verifying the as_of date provides some context but no direct guidance on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It fails to mention output format or behavior (e.g., returns a list of factors, no side effects). It only clarifies input structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences, no unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of actuarial calculations and lack of output schema/annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits output details, error conditions, and prerequisites, making it adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful context by explaining that triangle is an array of accident years with cumulative values per development period, which is crucial for correct usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool computes volume-weighted age-to-age factors from a cumulative paid/incurred triangle, which is a specific actuarial calculation. This distinguishes it from sibling insurance reserving tools like insurance_reserving__ibnr and insurance_reserving__project_ultimates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a triangle and need development factors, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full weight. It discloses the key behavioral trait of returning 'inf' for cash-flow positive scenarios, which is crucial for agent decision-making. For a simple math computation this is sufficient, though it could mention side effects or data requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, well-structured sentence that conveys purpose, edge-case behavior, and underlying assumption. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool (two numeric inputs, straightforward calculation), the description is adequate but lacks parameter definitions and explicit input constraints. It sufficiently describes the output behavior but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters 'cash' and 'avg_net_burn' beyond their names. The description adds no meaning to what the schema provides; a user unfamiliar with the domain would not know what values to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool computes months of runway at constant burn, and notably returns 'inf' if cash-flow positive. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'growth_adjusted_runway' and 'net_burn'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for simple constant-burn runway calculations, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives. Given sibling names, the context hints at alternatives, but the description itself lacks guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait (no tax drag), but does not mention other assumptions like compounding frequency or whether the rate is nominal/effective. The description adds some value beyond the schema but lacks full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the category prefix and directly states the purpose. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (simple future value formula) and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete. However, it could include the output format or assumptions about compounding to be fully adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain any parameters; it only states the overall purpose. Parameter names are self-explanatory ('principal', 'gross_annual_rate', 'years'), but the description adds no additional meaning or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool computes the future value of a lump sum in a tax-advantaged account (Roth/ISA) with no annual tax drag, using a specific verb ('FV') and resource ('lump sum'). It distinguishes from siblings like after_tax_future_value by specifying the tax treatment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for tax-advantaged accounts (Roth/ISA) and notes 'no annual tax drag', which indirectly tells when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use, but the context from sibling tools and naming convention makes the guidance clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states what is returned but does not disclose error handling (e.g., what happens if the skill name is invalid) or any side effects. Adequate for a simple retrieval but lacks full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes an explicit alternative. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and relationship to list_skills. However, it lacks details on return format or error handling, leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds minimal value: it implies the parameter 'name' is the skill name from list_skills, but does not specify format, constraints, or examples. Fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states that the tool returns the full SKILL.md instructions for a given skill, and distinguishes it from list_skills by noting that list_skills is for getting names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides when to use this tool versus list_skills: use list_skills to get skill names, and use get_skill to retrieve the full instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description accurately describes the behavior: listing all skills with trigger descriptions. No annotations are provided, but the description does not hide any side effects. However, it could explicitly state that the operation is read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that conveys the essential information with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It could mention that the output is a list, but the purpose is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist in the schema, so the description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline 4 for 0 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool lists all FinanceSkills with their trigger descriptions. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('FinanceSkills'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_skill' which retrieves a single skill.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_skill' for a specific skill, 'list_standards' for another listing). The agent must infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description clearly indicates a read-only list operation. It adds context about the type of standards included, though it does not disclose return format or authentication needs, which is acceptable for a simple tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple parameterless list tool, the description is complete. It specifies what is listed and gives examples. No output schema is needed for this use case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the scope (accounting/auditing) and listing example standards, going beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it lists available accounting/auditing standards summaries with specific examples (IFRS, IAS, etc.), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_standard' which retrieves a single standard.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (browsing available standards) vs. alternatives like 'get_standard' for details, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![financeskills MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/GAJETOso/financeskills/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/GAJETOso/financeskills)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![financeskills MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/GAJETOso/financeskills/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/GAJETOso/financeskills)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/GAJETOso/financeskills'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server