Calculate the final price and total savings from an original price and discount percentage. Enter the original price and discount percent to see the discounted cost and amount saved.
Calculate final price and savings from discount %. Input: originalPrice, discountPercent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| originalPrice | Yes | ||
| discountPercent | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral nuances, but it only states the calculation outcome. It does not clarify whether discountPercent should be expressed as 20 or 0.2, how rounding is handled, or whether currency formatting applies to originalPrice and the result.
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 short and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence. The 'Input:' line is somewhat redundant given the schema, but it provides a quick explicit summary without bloating the description.
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 straightforward two-parameter calculator, this is minimally viable: the purpose and input names are clear. However, without an output schema or annotation, the missing details about percent format, rounding, and return structure leave noticeable gaps for a fully informed invocation.
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 compensate. It merely repeats the parameter names and adds 'discount %', leaving originalPrice's currency/units and discountPercent's accepted range (e.g., 0–100 vs 0–1) undocumented.
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 uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and names the exact resource: final price and savings derived from a discount percentage. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling calculators like fee, margin, and loan calculators, even without explicit sibling comparisons.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this calculator versus alternatives such as markup_margin_calculator or sales_tax_calculator. The description states what the tool does but gives no context for selecting it among the many sibling calculators.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.