fraction_calc

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does mention a cost of $0.001 USDC via x402, which is a useful transactional detail. However, it does not describe the core behavior—what operations it performs, whether it's read-only, or the expected response format. The cost disclosure is the only behavioral trait, which is insufficient for a tool whose function is entirely undefined. Score 2.

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 text is brief, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The first sentence repeats the tool name, and the second only covers pricing. Every word should earn its place, but here the words provide negligible value to an agent. Score 2.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and the generic input schema, the description needed to explain the tool's functionality, but it does not. It doesn't state supported fraction operations, input format, or return value. Compared to sibling tools, this description is severely incomplete. Score 1.

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 contains a single generic 'params' object with the description 'Tool parameters as JSON object', which provides no semantic detail about required inputs like operands or operation type. The description adds nothing about parameters, and although schema coverage is reported as 100%, the schema description is a placeholder. This completely fails to inform the agent about how to invoke the tool. Score 1.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name ('fraction calc') and a generic category label ('Other Utilities tool'). It fails to specify what the tool does, such as simplifying fractions or performing arithmetic operations. This is a tautology, so score 1.

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 the many sibling calculator tools (e.g., evaluate_math, ratio_calc). The description offers no context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess application scenarios. Score 1.

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