macro_calc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention a required payment of $0.001 USDC via x402, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what inputs it expects, what outputs it produces, or any other behavioral side effects. The cost disclosure is the only behavioral transparency beyond the tool name.

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 brief and front-loaded, consisting of two short sentences. However, the first sentence ('macro calc — Health & Fitness tool') is largely a restatement of the tool name and adds little value. The second sentence about cost is useful but not enough to justify the overall lack of content. It is concise but under-specified, not earning its place fully.

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 tool is a calculator that likely requires multiple user inputs (e.g., age, weight, height, activity level, goals), but the description provides none of this context. There are no annotations and no output schema to compensate. The description is critically incomplete: an agent would not know what parameters to provide or what result to expect, making this tool unusable without external knowledge.

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 parameter 'params' described as 'Tool parameters as JSON object', which is a generic wrapper. Schema description coverage is 100% because the parameter has a description, but it does not define the expected structure or keys. Since coverage is high, the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it stays at 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 'macro calc — Health & Fitness tool', which adds a category but does not state a specific action or resource. It is vague, essentially restating the tool name without explaining what it calculates (e.g., macronutrient targets). No verb like 'calculate' or 'compute' is present, and it does not distinguish from sibling calculators.

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 alternatives. With many sibling tools like calculate_bmi, bmr_calc, and tdee_calc, there is no mention of macronutrients or any conditions that would steer an agent to this tool. It neither says when to use nor when not to use it.

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