Performs complex-number arithmetic with {re, im} pairs: add, subtract, multiply, divide, magnitude, argument, conjugate, power, and square root.
Complex-number arithmetic using {re, im}: add, subtract, multiply, divide, magnitude, argument, conjugate, power, and square root.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | ||
| b | No | ||
| operation | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about which operations require the optional b operand, what happens when b is omitted for a binary operation, error/domain behavior (e.g. divide by zero, sqrt of a negative), or precision. It merely lists operation names.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and operation set are stated immediately and nothing is wasted.
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 3-parameter tool with nested objects, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified — notably the role of b and the behavior/return of each operation — so an agent cannot call it confidently in all cases.
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 coverage is 0% and there are nested objects, so the description must compensate. It does partly help by mapping human operation names to the enum values (magnitude=abs, argument=arg, power=pow, square root=sqrt) and by showing the {re, im} shape, but it never explains the b parameter or which operations need it.
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 (arithmetic) and resource (complex numbers) with the {re, im} representation, and enumerates the supported operations. It distinguishes itself from generic siblings like calculate_expression or calculate_decimal, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to route against.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus calculate_expression, calculate_matrix, or the other math siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given. The operation list implies capability but not selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.