loan_calculator

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

The description discloses the cost ($0.001 USDC via x402), which is a practical behavioral detail, but it says nothing about what the tool calculates, what inputs it expects, whether it makes network calls, or what the output looks like. With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosure and fails to provide meaningful transparency beyond the cost.

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 very short, comprising two brief sentences. It is front-loaded with the tool's name and category, then cost. No unnecessary words, though the 'loan calculator' part redundantly repeats the tool name. Overall, it is concise and well-structured.

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?

For a financial calculator with no output schema and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what output is returned, what parameters are required, or how the calculation is performed. An agent has virtually no information to correctly invoke or interpret the result.

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 one generic parameter 'params' described as 'Tool parameters as JSON object', which gives 100% schema description coverage. This yields a baseline of 3. The description adds no further parameter information, such as expected keys (e.g., loan amount, interest rate, term), so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 says 'loan calculator' and 'Finance & Math tool', but it does not use a specific verb like 'calculates' and does not specify what aspect of loans it handles (monthly payments, amortization, etc.). It essentially restates the tool name and gives a broad category, failing to distinguish from sibling calculators like mortgage_calculator or auto_loan_calc.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other financial calculators. It mentions a cost, but no context about when this tool is appropriate, what alternatives exist, or any prerequisites. There is no exclusionary or comparative information.

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