investment_calculator

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 reveal a key trait: the tool costs $0.001 USDC via x402, which is relevant for the agent. However, it says nothing about the computation behavior, read-only nature, or potential side effects, leaving the tool mostly opaque.

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 a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential information about the tool's functionality and inputs. While there is no wasted wording, the brevity undermines usefulness, so it does not earn a high score.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a vague schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the investment calculator computes, what arguments to pass, what the result looks like, or how it differs from the many sibling calculation tools. An agent cannot reliably select or invoke this tool based on the provided information.

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 has only a generic 'params' object with the description 'Tool parameters as JSON object', which provides no actual parameter names or meaning. The tool description adds no parameter information at all, so an agent cannot know what keys to include (e.g., principal, rate, time). The nominal 100% schema coverage is misleading because the schema itself is unhelpful.

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's name ('investment calculator') and adds a generic category ('Finance & Math tool'). It does not specify a verb or the specific calculation performed, so it fails to distinguish this from sibling tools like compound_interest, roi_calc, or cagr_calc. This is essentially a tautology.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any input requirements, typical use cases, or exclusions. The only additional information is the cost, which is not usage guidance.

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