amortization_calc

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only mentions the cost ($0.001 USDC via x402). It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what inputs it requires, what outputs it produces, or any side effects. The cost information is useful but insufficient for a calculation tool.

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 extremely short but under-specified. While it is not verbose, it does not earn its place because it omits essential purpose and usage details. A concise description that lacks substantive content is not effective.

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, no annotations, and an opaque parameter schema, the description is severely inadequate. For a financial calculation tool that likely requires multiple inputs (principal, rate, term, etc.) and produces a schedule, the description fails to convey any of this, making it nearly unusable for an agent.

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 schema only provides a generic 'params' object with no details about actual parameters like principal, interest rate, or term. The description adds no parameter information whatsoever, leaving the agent with no understanding of what arguments to pass. Schema coverage is nominal (100% of one wrapper property) but semantically empty.

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 merely restates the tool name ('amortization calc') and adds a generic category ('Finance & Math tool'). It does not specify the verb+resource or explain what amortization calculation entails, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling finance calculators like loan_calculator, emi_calc, or mortgage_calculator.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no examples, exclusions, or mention of typical use cases. The description is silent on prerequisites or scenarios where amortization_calc is the appropriate choice.

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