markup_calc

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the tool costs $0.001 USDC via x402 and is a finance/math tool. It does not explain whether it is read-only, stateless, what inputs it expects, or what output it returns, leaving major behavioral assumptions unstated.

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, but the first sentence merely repeats the tool name and category, so it doesn't earn its place. The cost sentence is useful but the lack of functional specification is under-specification, not concise communication.

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 complex namespace with dozens of closely related finance/math calculators, a generic params object, no output schema, and no functional description. An agent cannot determine what inputs to provide, what result to expect, or even what 'markup calc' computes, making the description inadequate for tool selection.

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?

Schema description coverage is reported at 100% because the only property 'params' is described as a generic JSON object, but that description carries no semantic content. The tool description adds no parameter names or formulas, so per the high-coverage baseline the score is 3, but no real meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 'markup calc — Finance & Math tool', which essentially restates the tool name and places it in a broad category. It does not specify what calculation is performed (e.g., adding markup vs. computing markup percentage) or how it differs from sibling calculators like margin_calc or percentage_calculator.

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 given on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. The only operational note is the cost, which is about payment, not usage context. Sibling tools cover many finance/math domains, but no distinction is provided.

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