explain_methodologyReturns the documented conventions and formulas used by this calculator for SAFEs, convertible notes, priced rounds, and cap tables, helping users audit assumptions and results.
Return the documented conventions and formulas this calculator uses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload is documented conventions/formulas, but says nothing about scope or size of the returned documentation, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotations.
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?
A single efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded correctly, though the referent of 'this calculator' is slightly ambiguous and a few words clarifying the scope of the returned conventions would have earned their place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-param tool with no output schema, the description should sketch what comes back; it says 'conventions and formulas' but not at what granularity or scoped to what. Adequate to call the tool, but thin on what the agent will actually receive.
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?
There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so per the baseline rule this scores 4. There is nothing parameter-related the description could or should compensate for.
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 gives a specific verb+resource: return documented conventions and formulas. It's clear what the tool surfaces, and none of the sibling tools (safe_conversion_price, model_priced_round, etc.) are explanation-oriented, so it is practically distinguishable — but the description never explicitly differentiates itself from those calculation siblings.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The phrase 'this calculator' implies the context in which it applies, but there is no explicit statement of when an agent should call this versus simply running one of the sibling calculation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.