MCP Math Server

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 states what the tool does but does not describe how it behaves: e.g., what tolerance means in practice, whether it handles edge cases like empty sequences or non-numeric inputs, or what the output looks like (e.g., boolean or detailed result). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose, followed by domain/category in parentheses. There is zero waste, and every part earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (checking geometric sequences with tolerance), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not cover parameter meanings, behavioral details, or output format, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'sequence' parameter (e.g., that it should be numeric) or the 'tolerance' parameter (e.g., its role in checking the constant ratio). With two parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check if a sequence is geometric (constant ratio between consecutive terms).' It specifies the verb ('Check'), resource ('sequence'), and defines the geometric property. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'is_arithmetic' or 'geometric_sequence', which are related but serve different purposes, preventing a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the domain ('arithmetic') and category ('general'), but this is vague and does not help an agent decide between this tool and siblings like 'is_arithmetic' or 'geometric_sequence'. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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