calculate_profit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description is transparent about the core behavior: calculating profit with a 1% tax. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the burden. It doesn't detail output format or potential edge cases, but for a simple calculation, this is sufficient.

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 a single, concise sentence (12 words) that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simplicity (4 numeric/string inputs, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate context. It explains the tax and the parameters' role. It could mention the return type (e.g., integer profit) or rounding, but the purpose is well-covered.

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?

All four parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds context that the calculation is for 'GE flip profit after 1% tax', but this is a modest addition beyond the schema's descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 calculates profit from GE flipping with a specific tax (1%) and required inputs. It uses a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('GE flip profit'), differentiating from siblings like ge_price or ge_mapping.

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 purpose is clear: to compute profit after a flip. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, the intent is obvious from the description and sibling names (e.g., ge_price for prices, not profit). A minor improvement would be including when to prefer alternative tools.

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