calculator

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'Safely evaluates' indicating sandboxing but does not detail safety guarantees, error handling, or return format. The list of functions is helpful but behavioral traits beyond basic operation are sparse.

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 relatively concise with three short paragraphs. Purpose is front-loaded, supported operations listed succinctly, and variable usage mentioned. Minor verbosity in listing functions, but overall efficient.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers input parameters and capabilities adequately but omits error behavior, return type (likely numeric), and whether arbitrary Python expressions are fully supported. It is usable but not fully comprehensive.

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%, so description must compensate. It explains 'expression' is a string in Python syntax and 'variables' is a dict that can include lists for time series data, adding meaningful context beyond the schema's empty titles.

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 it evaluates mathematical/statistical expressions using Python syntax, listing supported operations and functions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are all crypto/wallet-related, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies usage for math/stat calculations but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. Given sibling tools are unrelated, context provides implicit clarity, but no direct exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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