evaluate_math

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention a cost of $0.001 USDC, which is a useful operational detail, but it doesn't disclose return format, error behavior, side effects, or any limitations. The minimal cost note is insufficient for a tool with no other behavioral context.

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 two short sentences with zero fluff: 'evaluate math — Other Utilities tool. Costs $0.001 USDC via x402.' Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose. As a model of conciseness, it's exactly as compact as it should be, though this comes at the expense of completeness.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a single opaque parameter, the description is severely incomplete. It provides some context (category and cost) but fails to explain expected inputs, outputs, examples, or edge cases. The presence of many sibling math tools makes this incompleteness particularly problematic, as there's no way to know what 'evaluate math' actually evaluates.

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 generic 'params' object with no specific properties, and the description adds no information about what parameters are needed to evaluate math. The schema's description 'Tool parameters as JSON object' is tautological and unhelpful. The agent has no idea what keys or values to include, making the tool effectively unusable without external knowledge.

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 states the tool evaluates math, which is a specific verb+resource, but it doesn't clarify what kind of math (arithmetic, algebra, etc.) or distinguish it from the many math-related sibling tools like factorial_calculator or percentage_calculator. The phrase 'evaluate math' essentially restates the tool name without adding scope or 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description lacks any comparison to sibling math tools, leaving the agent to infer when 'evaluate_math' 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.