proportion_calc

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

The description does disclose a cost of $0.001 USDC via x402, which is a useful behavioral trait, but it says nothing about what the tool computes, side effects, or return behavior. With no annotations to provide a safety profile, the description carries the full burden and falls far short of explaining how the tool behaves.

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 minimal but not appropriately focused; it wastes the first phrase on a tautological label and the vague 'Other Utilities tool.' The cost information is useful, but the overall structure is an under-specification that fails to explain the tool's core purpose.

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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and a generic input schema, the description alone is what an agent can rely on. It does not cover what the tool does, what parameters it expects, or what response it returns, making it completely inadequate for an agent to invoke 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 is generic (a single 'params' object with no properties), and the description adds no information about required inputs, formats, or examples. The tool name hints that proportions are involved, but the description itself offers zero semantic clarity, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid call.

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 repeats the tool name 'proportion calc' and adds the vague category 'Other Utilities tool,' which is essentially a tautology. It does not state a specific verb or resource (e.g., 'Calculate the proportion between two values'), nor does it distinguish this tool from similar siblings like ratio_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include ratio_calc, fraction_calc, and percentage_calculator, but the description never mentions these or any condition that would make proportion_calc the preferred choice.

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