cagr_calc

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pricing ('$0.001 USDC via x402') but says nothing about what the tool does, whether it is read-only, side effects, permissions, or output behavior. This is 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 short (one line), but the opening 'cagr calc' is redundant with the tool name. The cost information earns its place, but the overall brevity sacrifices substance for 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?

The description is critically incomplete for a tool that accepts a nested object parameter and has no output schema. It fails to specify input format, expected fields, result structure, or disambiguate from numerous sibling finance tools.

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 a single 'params' object with description 'Tool parameters as JSON object,' giving 100% schema coverage. Baseline 3 applies, but the tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, leaving the required nested attributes unknown.

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 restates the tool name ('cagr calc') and vaguely labels it as a 'Finance & Math tool' but does not state that it calculates CAGR or any specific operation. It lacks a clear verb+resource and fails to distinguish it from siblings like compound_interest.

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 similar finance/math tools. The description only mentions cost and category, offering no context for selection.

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