convert_units

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the conversion action but doesn't describe traits like precision (e.g., decimal handling), error behavior (e.g., invalid inputs), or performance (e.g., computational cost). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('convert') and resources, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.

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 low complexity (simple conversion with 3 parameters) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context like return format (e.g., string or number), error handling, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations, it should provide more behavioral detail for completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (value, fromUnit, toUnit) with enums for units. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples (e.g., string numeric values) or constraints (e.g., non-negative). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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's purpose: converting between specific Ethereum units (wei, gwei, eth). It uses a specific verb ('convert') and identifies the resources (units), but doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'compare_balances' or 'get_historical_balance' that might involve unit handling. The description is accurate but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., use for gas calculations or token amounts), or exclusions (e.g., not for non-Ethereum units). With many sibling tools for blockchain data, this omission leaves the agent without usage context.

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