Multiply two numbers to get their product accurately. Use batch_calc for chained or multi-step calculations.
Multiplies two numbers. For several operations or chained steps in one call, use batch_calc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| firstNumber | Yes | The first number | |
| secondNumber | Yes | The second number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the operation clearly, but it does not explicitly confirm purity/no side effects, numeric precision behavior, or the return shape. For a simple arithmetic tool the behavioral surface is small, but the description adds no explicit behavioral context beyond the operation name.
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?
Two short sentences with zero waste. The core operation is front-loaded, followed immediately by the routing alternative.
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?
For a two-parameter pure-arithmetic tool with 100% schema description coverage, the description covers purpose and the key routing decision. Although there is no output schema, the return value (the product) is self-evident from the operation, so nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable at the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Multiplies two numbers') and explicitly names the sibling tool to use for a different scope. An agent can distinguish this from add, subtract, division, and the other arithmetic siblings without opening any schema.
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?
Provides explicit routing guidance: use this for multiplying two numbers, but use batch_calc for several operations or chained steps in one call. The alternative and the condition that selects it are both stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.