safe_conversion_priceCompare cap, discount, and round prices to calculate a SAFE or note holder's conversion price and shares.
For one SAFE or note: compare cap price, discount price and round price, return the conversion price (best-of for the holder) and shares.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | ||
| discount | No | ||
| valuationCap | No | ||
| roundPricePerShare | Yes | ||
| capitalizationShares | No |
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, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the computation logic ('best-of for the holder') and what is returned, which the annotations alone do not convey.
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 dense sentence with the scope ('for one SAFE or note') front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries information.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully names the return values (conversion price, shares), but for a 5-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage it leaves the 'amount' input and all parameter semantics unexplained.
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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It conceptually names cap price, discount price, round price and shares, covering most inputs, but says nothing about 'amount' or expected units/formats for any parameter.
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 set (compare, return) and resource (SAFE/note conversion price) plus the output (conversion price and shares), which is far clearer than a name restatement. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like safe_ownership or model_priced_round, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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 phrase 'For one SAFE or note' scopes the tool to a single instrument, which implicitly suggests it is not the multi-instrument / round-modeling tools nearby. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.