momentum_calc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the cost ($0.001 USDC via x402), which is useful, but it omits the core behavior entirely: what inputs are required, what calculation is performed, what the output looks like, or any side effects.

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 and front-loaded with the name, but the first clause is tautological and wastes space. The cost information is concise and useful, so the overall length is appropriate, but there are clear content gaps that brevity does not excuse.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a generic input schema, the description is severely incomplete. It says nothing about the formula, parameter structure, units, return value, or how this tool differs from the many other calculators in the sibling list, making it nearly impossible to use correctly.

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 input schema only provides a generic 'params' object with no specific properties, and the description does not compensate by explaining expected fields (e.g., mass, velocity) or units. Although schema coverage is nominally 100%, the schema adds no real semantic value, and the description fails to fill that gap.

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 only restates the tool name ('momentum calc') and places it in a generic category ('Other Utilities tool'), without any verb or explanation of what the tool actually does. It does not distinguish this from the many other calculator tools in the sibling list (e.g., loan_calculator, compound_interest).

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 alternatives. The description gives no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name that it computes momentum.

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