significant_figures

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

The only behavioral trait disclosed is the cost and payment method ('Costs $0.001 USDC via x402'), which goes beyond annotations (none exist) but does not describe the tool's operation, output, side effects, or limitations. This is minimal value for transparency.

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 extremely short but under-specifies; it is concise in word count but lacks the essential content that would make it useful. The structure is a single sentence with a dash, providing no logical breakdown of purpose, usage, or parameters.

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 no outputs schema, sparse annotations, and a generic schema, the description fails to satisfy even basic completeness. It does not state what the tool does, what inputs it takes, or what it returns, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool 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 exposes only a generic 'params' object with no specific fields. The description provides zero information about what parameters are expected, making it impossible for an agent to construct a valid call without external knowledge.

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 names the tool ('significant figures') and labels it as an 'Other Utilities tool,' but does not state the specific action it performs (e.g., rounding or calculating significant figures). It relies on the user knowing what 'significant figures' means, which is ambiguous in a utility context.

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 for when to use this tool versus any of the many siblings (e.g., scientific_notation, evaluate_math). The description lacks any contextual or exclusionary information that would help an agent select it appropriately.

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