≤6 次元の決定的実数方程式系求解エンジン · AIエージェントと一般ユーザー向けMCPツール
霊数ソルバー（コードネーム Epsilon、V4.1）は、オフライン・決定的・ゼロデータの実数方程式系ソルバーであり、 ≤6変数・実数解・軽量な数値位置特定をカバーします。ユーザーに初期値を要求せず、区間演算による保守的収縮 + Krawczyk作用素による解の認証を行い、多解の徹底探索に努めます。
このリンクを開くだけで使えます。何もインストールする必要はありません： 👉 https://genesis-plan.github.io/lingshu-solver/ （GitHub Pages、海外/汎用）
国内ユーザー（より高速、腾讯云 COS ホスティング）： 👉 https://hclj-1409755229.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/lingshu-solver/index.html
入力欄に方程式を書いて（例：x^2 + y^2 = 25 と x + y = 7）、求解をクリックするだけです。
ページ内に6つのサンプルボタンがあり、クリックすれば何が解けるかすぐ分かります。
方法A · リモートホスティング（ゼロインストール、認証不要ですぐ使える） 常駐のパブリックネットワークサービスをデプロイ済みです。URLを入力するだけで、本機にNodeをインストールする必要はありません：
{
"mcpServers": {
"lingshu-solver": {
"url": "http://159.75.154.206:3000/mcp"
}
}
}エンドポイント：
http://159.75.154.206:3000/mcp（Streamable HTTP）。サービスは腾讯云ライトサーバー上で稼働し、起動時自動起動・クラッシュ時自動復旧します。 ⚠️ 現在はベアIP + HTTPの一時エンドポイントです。hongchenlingjing.comの备案（ICP登録）通過後、https://hongchenlingjing.com/mcpの固定HTTPSドメインに切り替えます（その際ここを更新）。この一時エンドポイントは接続テストに使用できます。Smithery などHTTPSが必要なプラットフォームは、备案完了後に正式接続します。
方法B · ローカル stdio（本機にNodeが必要）
{
"mcpServers": {
"lingshu-solver": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "lingshu-solver"]
}
}
}
npx版は本パッケージがnpmに公開されてから利用可能です（対応中）。それまではgit cloneしてから方法Cをご利用ください。
方法C · ローカル clone + パス指定
git clone https://github.com/genesis-plan/lingshu-solver.git
cd lingshu-solver
node mcp-server.jsMCP設定：
{ "mcpServers": { "lingshu-solver": { "command": "node", "args": ["本地绝对路径/灵数求解器/mcp-server.js"] } } }git clone https://github.com/genesis-plan/lingshu-solver.git
cd lingshu-solver
node mcp-server.js # 启动 MCP 服务端
node test/regression.js # 跑回归测试（28 用例）本リポジトリには以下が含まれます：
index.html —— 単一ファイル製品（ブラウザ内UI + 検証済みコアスクリプト <script id="solver-core">）
solver-core.js —— Nodeエンジンローダー（index.htmlのコアスクリプトを読み込み、ゼロ依存、MCP/テストで再利用）
mcp-server.js —— ゼロ依存MCP stdioサーバー（手書きJSON-RPC 2.0 + Content-Lengthフレーミング）
package.json —— 標準メタデータ、npx lingshu-solver で一行接続
test/ —— 回帰スイート + スモークテスト + 3セットの常駐試験問題
Related MCP server: Math MCP Server
次元 | 説明 |
検証済み解 | 見つかった各解はKrawczyk認証済み（ |
網羅性 | 多解の徹底探索に努めます；極端な悪条件（ヤコビアンが高度に特異、解クラスタが極めて近接）の場合、予算内で一部の解を見逃す可能性があり、その際は明示的に |
| 「予算内で全ボックスをグローバル分岐として完全に判定できなかった（網羅を証明できない）」ことを示すのみで、必ずしも見逃しを意味しません；大多数のケースでは全ての真の解が見つかっています |
変数数 | ≤6 |
数値範囲 | デフォルト探索域 ±1e6；急成長関数（exp/sinh）や大域の場合、剪枝失敗を避けるため明示的に |
決定性 | ランダム分岐なし、同じ入力には常に同じ出力 |
デプロイ | 完全ローカル・オフライン・ゼロデータ（ネットワークなし・ストレージなし・サードパーティ依存なし） |
保証しないこと：あらゆる入力に対して100%網羅すること、高度に悪条件なシステムが予算内で必ず収束すること。これらは誠実な境界であり、欠陥ではありません。
形態 | エンドポイント / コマンド | 適用 |
リモートHTTP（稼働中） |
| Streamable HTTP対応のMCPクライアント、ゼロインストール |
ローカル stdio（npx） |
| 本機にNode導入済み、npm公開後に利用可能 |
ローカル stdio（clone） |
| 開発者 / オフライン自社ホスティング |
リモートHTTPサーバーコード：http-mcp-server.js（ゼロ依存、Node組み込みモジュールのみ使用；mcp-server.js と solver-core.js の求解コアを共有し、結果は同源で一致）。リモートサービスの自社ホスティングが必要な場合：
PORT=3000 node http-mcp-server.js推奨 · リモートホスティング（ゼロインストール、稼働中）：
{
"mcpServers": {
"lingshu-solver": {
"url": "http://159.75.154.206:3000/mcp"
}
}
}ローカル stdio · 一行コマンド（npm公開が必要、未公開；現在はclone版をご利用ください）：
{
"mcpServers": {
"lingshu-solver": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "lingshu-solver"]
}
}
}注：
npx lingshu-solverは本パッケージがnpmに公開されてから利用可能です。対応中です。それまでは下記「ローカルパスを手動指定」版（先にclone）をご利用ください。
代替 · ローカルパスを手動指定（clone済みの場合）：
{
"mcpServers": {
"lingshu-solver": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["把这里替换成你本地的绝对路径/灵数求解器/mcp-server.js"]
}
}
}手動版では
args内のパスを本機のmcp-server.jsの絶対パスに置き換える必要があります（例：C:/Users/あなたのユーザー名/Desktop/霊数ソルバー/mcp-server.js）。npx版ではこの手順は不要です。
solve入力：
{
"equations": ["x^2 + y^2 = 25", "x + y = 7"],
"variables": ["x", "y"],
"domain": { "x": [-30, 30], "y": [-30, 30] }
}equations：方程式文字列の配列（必須）、+ - * / ^ sqrt log sin cos tan exp abs をサポート、および文中の域制約 "x ∈ [-30,30]"。
variables：変数名の配列（任意、未指定の場合は出現順に自動認識、最大6個）。
domain：明示的な探索域（任意）。「有限解・部分」デモや急成長関数では指定を推奨、そうでない場合デフォルトの ±1e6 では剪枝が失敗し truncated が発生する可能性があります。
出力精度は固定小数6桁（製品仕様「6桁小数の有限グリッド」）、桁数切替は提供しません；解点
valuesはグリッドに吸着され、実際の残差は通常 ≤ 1e-9。
出力（抜粋）：
{
"resultType": 2,
"resultTypeName": "finite",
"certified": true,
"truncated": false,
"precisionDecimals": 6,
"solutionCount": 2,
"recommended": { "values": [3, 4], "tier": "proven", "residual": 0 },
"solutions": [ { "values": [3, 4], "tier": "proven", "residual": 0 }, ... ],
"warnings": []
}resultType：1=empty(解なし) / 2=finite(有限解) / 3=infinite(無限解集合、原点に最も近い推奨解のみ提供)。
tier：proven（Krawczyk認証）/ candidate（未認証だが解の可能性）/ structural（構造的導出）。
give_feedbackAIエージェントが行き詰まり・エラー・疑わしい問題に遭遇した際に能動的に報告、ローカルの feedback.log にのみ記録され、外部送信はされません：
{ "name": "give_feedback", "arguments": { "message": "x^2=4 期望2解", "context": "批量求解场景" } }node verify_core.js # 引擎加载 + 6 个代表性用例
node mcp_smoke.js # MCP 字节级冒烟（initialize/tools/list/tools/call）
node mcp_smoke2.js # give_feedback + 错误结构化（不泄露堆栈）
node test/regression.js # 三套常驻考卷回归（28 用例，known 命中率统计）タイトル | 方程式 | 期待結果 |
最小1変数 |
| 2解 |
最大6変数 | 6元三重対角線形 | 唯一解 |
空集合・解なし |
| 空集合（soundで解なしを証明） |
有限解・全部 | 円 × 双曲線 | 4解すべて認証 |
有限解・部分 |
| 多解 + |
無限解・推奨 |
| 無限集合、推奨 (1.5,1.5) |
《霊数ソルバー_コードフロー中国語説明.md》—— 解析から出力までの完全な内部フロー（数学バックグラウンドの読者向け）
《霊数ソルバー商業化戦略ホワイトペーパー.md》—— ポジショニング、能力の境界、リスク
発明特許出願書シリーズ（提出済み）
Apache License 2.0 —— LICENSE を参照。
Report a problem to the operator when solve hits a dead end, returns an error, or produces something you believe is wrong. The text is written to a local log only and is never transmitted anywhere else.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | Optional context: the triggering scenario or input characteristics. | |
| message | Yes | What you hit, what you expected, and what you actually got. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses the key side effect: text is written to a local log only and never transmitted elsewhere. It does not cover log location, permissions, or return behavior, but the critical data-handling trait is stated.
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 two efficient sentences. The primary purpose and trigger conditions are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds essential behavioral context without waste.
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 simple two-parameter feedback tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage triggers, and data handling adequately. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying whether feedback should also be given when verify finds issues, but the core context is sufficient.
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 100%, and the schema already documents both context and message thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and target: reporting a problem to the operator. It also specifies the exact triggering conditions tied to the sibling tool solve, making it easy to distinguish from computational siblings like solve, verify, and poly_roots.
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?
It clearly says when to use the tool: when solve hits a dead end, returns an error, or produces something believed wrong. It does not state when not to use it or name explicit alternatives, but the contextual guidance is strong and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
All real roots of a polynomial, each individually certified by Krawczyk with a strict error box. Coefficients are ordered highest degree first, so [1,-2,-5,6] means x^3-2x^2-5x+6. Deterministic and reproducible; complex roots are not returned (real numbers only). Use it as a reliable polynomial root component instead of letting a general language model estimate roots. Free to use: pass honorPaid:true to declare personal or evaluation use.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tolerance | No | Tolerance used to decide a root (optional; internal precision is used by default). | |
| coefficients | Yes | Polynomial coefficients, highest degree first. [1,-2,-5,6] means x^3-2x^2-5x+6. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses determinism/reproducibility, the Krawczyk certification with strict error boxes, exclusion of complex roots, and the honorPaid licensing declaration. It omits failure behavior for malformed or non-polynomial input and does not explain that honorPaid is not present in the declared input schema, which is a notable gap.
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?
Front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, then the coefficient-ordering convention and the licensing note. Four sentences with little waste, though the honorPaid sentence is longer than the information warrants.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must cover returns; it explains the certificate and error box but not the shape of the result (list of roots? objects with bounds?). It also never reconciles the honorPaid parameter with a schema that lacks it, leaving the agent unsure how to satisfy the licensing requirement.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents coefficients ordering and tolerance defaults, so the description's repetition of the [1,-2,-5,6] example adds no new meaning. The only novel parameter information is honorPaid, which is not in the schema at all, creating ambiguity rather than usable semantics.
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?
States a specific verb and resource – returning all real roots of a polynomial – plus the scope qualifier that complex roots are excluded and roots are certified by Krawczyk with a strict error box. It does not explicitly compare itself to siblings like solve or verify, so an agent still has to infer the boundary between this and a general solver.
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?
It advises use 'instead of letting a general language model estimate roots', which implies when to reach for it, but gives no when-not guidance and never names the sibling solve/verify tools it should be preferred over or combined with. Requirements and prerequisites for input are not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Deterministic solver for systems of real equations. This is not a language model: no randomness, and identical input always returns an identical, reproducible result. Use it when you need a verifiable, reproducible numeric answer for algebraic equations or common transcendentals (sin/cos/tan/log/exp/sqrt/abs); it works well as a non-hallucinating math backend for an AI agent. Not suitable for symbolic algebra, closed-form proofs, initial-value ODEs, or mandatory integer equality. INPUT: equations (array of strings containing an equals sign, e.g. ["x^2+y^2=25","x+y=7"]); supported operators + - * / ^ sqrt log sin cos tan exp abs, with in-text domain constraints such as x in [-30,30]; variables (optional, auto-detected, max 6); domain (optional, e.g. {"x":[-30,30]}), defaulting to +/-1e6 per variable. HARD LIMITS: at most 6 variables; 1 to 64 equations and the equation count must be at least the variable count; up to 100KB of equation text per call; output is fixed at 6 decimal places and is not configurable. OUTPUT (JSON): resultType is empty (no real solutions, proven), finite (finite verified solutions) or infinite (infinite solution set, only the recommended nearest-to-origin solution is given); summary; solutions[] with values[] (6-decimal numbers), tier (proven means Krawczyk-certified, otherwise likely or candidate), certified, text; residual and other internals under internals; recommended holds the compact nearest-to-origin structure. truncated=true means the global branch-and-bound did not finish inside the budget; it does not necessarily mean solutions were missed and in most cases every real solution was found; narrow the domain or raise options.budget and retry if you need a completeness guarantee. Errors return error.type (invalid_input or internal_error). If something looks wrong, call give_feedback rather than guessing. The same input always produces the exact same output, so caching and retries are safe. PAYMENT: this endpoint is free to use. Pass honorPaid:true to declare personal or evaluation use and the call is served with no verification and no balance deduction; payment is voluntary and never enforced.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | No | Explicit search domain (optional), e.g. {"x":[-30,30],"y":[-30,30]}. Recommended for near-infinite solution sets or fast-growing functions such as exp or sinh; without it the default +/-1e6 may fail to prune and set truncated. | |
| options | No | Advanced options (optional), e.g. {budget:500000, maxDepth:28} | |
| fastMode | No | Fast mode (default false). | |
| equations | Yes | Array of equation strings, e.g. ["x^2 + y^2 = 25", "x + y = 7"]. Supports + - * / ^ sqrt log sin cos tan exp abs, plus in-text domain constraints such as x in [-30,30]. | |
| variables | No | Variable names (optional). If omitted they are auto-detected from the equation text, in order of appearance. Maximum 6. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries full burden and does so richly: determinism/reproducibility ('identical input always returns an identical output, so caching and retries are safe'), hard limits, error taxonomy (invalid_input/internal_error), truncated semantics, and payment behavior. This is exactly the behavioral disclosure a mutation-free but complex tool needs.
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?
Front-loaded with purpose, then INPUT/HARD LIMITS/OUTPUT/PAYMENT headers that make scanning easy; each block is substantive rather than filler. It is long, and the OUTPUT block is verbose because no output schema exists, but the payment paragraph is the only portion that could be trimmed.
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?
With no output schema and nested options/domain objects, the description supplies the return contract itself (resultType enum, solutions[].tier/certified, truncated, error.type), so an agent knows what it will get back. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation or interpretation.
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 coverage is already 100%, so the schema handles per-parameter meaning; the description still adds constraints the schema does not encode (max 6 variables, 1-64 equations, equation count >= variable count, 100KB cap, 6-decimal fixed output, domain defaulting to +/1e6). It stops short of explaining options.budget/maxDepth or fastMode, which the schema also leaves thin.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('deterministic solver for systems of real equations') and immediately separates itself from siblings by naming what it is not: not symbolic algebra, not an ODE solver, not a language model. An agent can distinguish it from poly_roots/verify without opening any schema.
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?
Explicitly frames when to use it ('verifiable, reproducible numeric answer for algebraic equations or common transcendentals') and when not ('Not suitable for symbolic algebra, closed-form proofs, initial-value ODEs, or mandatory integer equality'), plus it routes failures to give_feedback. This is the full when/when-not/alternative pattern.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check whether a claimed answer is correct. Give the equation plus a candidate value (a number for a single variable, {variable:value} pairs, or an array in variable order); the same certified kernel runs in a neighbourhood around the candidate. If a matching certified root is found the result is verified together with the error box; otherwise it is refuted and the nearest certified root is returned, so the calling agent immediately sees the correct value. Deterministic, not an LLM, reproducible across calls. Free to use: pass honorPaid:true to declare personal or evaluation use.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| equation | Yes | A single equation containing an equals sign, e.g. "x^2 = 4". | |
| candidate | Yes | The claimed answer: a number (single variable, default variable x), {variable:value} for multiple variables, or an array in variables order. | |
| tolerance | No | Neighbourhood radius (optional, default 1e-3) within which a matching certified root is searched. | |
| variables | No | Variable names (required for multiple variables or array candidates), e.g. ["x","y"]. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the certified-kernel neighbourhood search, determinism and reproducibility, the refutation branch returning the nearest certified root, and a pricing/usage declaration via honorPaid. It omits failure modes such as malformed equation or non-convergence behaviour.
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 core behaviour and input forms are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and every sentence carries information. It runs slightly long, with the honorPaid pricing clause appended as a trailing sentence that is easy to skim past.
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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers both outcomes (verified with error box vs refuted with nearest certified root) so the agent knows what it will receive. It stops short of describing invalid-input or timeout behaviour, which is a minor gap.
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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the candidate is evaluated within a neighbourhood of the supplied value ('the same certified kernel runs in a neighbourhood around the candidate'), which contextualises what tolerance actually does.
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?
States a specific verb and object ('Check whether a claimed answer is correct') and frames the tool as a verifier of a supplied candidate rather than a solver, which cleanly separates it from siblings solve and poly_roots. An agent can select it without opening the schema.
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?
Gives clear context for use: supply an equation plus a candidate value, and the tool certifies or refutes it. It does not explicitly say when not to use it (e.g. use solve/poly_roots when no candidate exists), so routing to alternatives is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.22give_feedback2 fields changedInput schema / properties / context / descriptionPrevious value: -"可选上下文：触发场景、输入特征等。"New value: +"Optional context: the triggering scenario or input characteristics."Input schema / properties / message / descriptionPrevious value: -"反馈内容：遇到了什么、期望什么、实际得到什么。"New value: +"What you hit, what you expected, and what you actually got."poly_roots2 fields changedInput schema / properties / coefficients / descriptionPrevious value: -"多项式系数，最高次在前。如 [1,-2,-5,6] 对应 x³−2x²−5x+6。"New value: +"Polynomial coefficients, highest degree first. [1,-2,-5,6] means x^3-2x^2-5x+6."Input schema / properties / tolerance / descriptionPrevious value: -"根的判定容差（可选，默认内部精度）"New value: +"Tolerance used to decide a root (optional; internal precision is used by default)."solve5 fields changedInput schema / properties / domain / descriptionPrevious value: -"显式搜索域（可选）。形如 {\"x\":[-30,30],\"y\":[-30,30]}。对\"有限解·部分\"演示或快增长函数（exp/sinh）建议显式给定，否则默认 ±1e6 可能剪枝失效并触发 truncated。"New value: +"Explicit search domain (optional), e.g. {\"x\":[-30,30],\"y\":[-30,30]}. Recommended for near-infinite solution sets or fast-growing functions such as exp or sinh; without it the default +/-1e6 may fail to prune and set truncated."Input schema / properties / equations / descriptionPrevious value: -"方程字符串数组，如 [\"x^2 + y^2 = 25\", \"x + y = 7\"]。支持 + - * / ^ sqrt log sin cos tan exp abs，以及 in-text 域约束 \"x ∈ [-30,30]\"。"New value: +"Array of equation strings, e.g. [\"x^2 + y^2 = 25\", \"x + y = 7\"]. Supports + - * / ^ sqrt log sin cos tan exp abs, plus in-text domain constraints such as x in [-30,30]."Input schema / properties / fastMode / descriptionPrevious value: -"快速模式（默认 false）"New value: +"Fast mode (default false)."Input schema / properties / options / descriptionPrevious value: -"高级选项（可选），如 {budget:500000, maxDepth:28}"New value: +"Advanced options (optional), e.g. {budget:500000, maxDepth:28}"Input schema / properties / variables / descriptionPrevious value: -"变量名数组（可选）。不填则由方程文本自动识别，顺序按出现。最多 6 个。"New value: +"Variable names (optional). If omitted they are auto-detected from the equation text, in order of appearance. Maximum 6."verify4 fields changedInput schema / properties / candidate / descriptionPrevious value: -"声称的答案：数字（单变量，默认变量 x）、{变量:值}（多变量）、或按 variables 顺序的数组。"New value: +"The claimed answer: a number (single variable, default variable x), {variable:value} for multiple variables, or an array in variables order."Input schema / properties / equation / descriptionPrevious value: -"含 \"=\" 的方程，如 \"x^2 = 4\"。"New value: +"A single equation containing an equals sign, e.g. \"x^2 = 4\"."Input schema / properties / tolerance / descriptionPrevious value: -"邻域半径（可选，默认 1e-3），在该邻域内寻找匹配的认证根。"New value: +"Neighbourhood radius (optional, default 1e-3) within which a matching certified root is searched."Input schema / properties / variables / descriptionPrevious value: -"变量名（多变量或数组候选时必填），如 [\"x\",\"y\"]。"New value: +"Variable names (required for multiple variables or array candidates), e.g. [\"x\",\"y\"]."v1.0.15poly_rootsverifyv1.0.2give_feedbacksolveScored across 4 tools
solve, poly_roots, verify, and give_feedback mostly have distinct roles: solving systems, finding polynomial roots, validating candidate answers, and reporting issues. However, solve and poly_roots can overlap for single polynomial equations, so an agent may occasionally hesitate between them.
Names are readable and mostly snake_case, but they mix patterns: solve and verify are simple verbs, give_feedback is verb_noun, and poly_roots is a noun. The set lacks a single predictable naming convention.
Four tools is well-scoped for a deterministic math solver with verification and feedback. Each tool appears to earn its place, and there is no obvious bloat or thinness.
The surface covers solving equations, polynomial roots, verifying claimed answers, and reporting problems, which matches the core numeric-solver domain. Minor gaps exist around explicit configuration/help tooling, but solve already exposes relevant options in its input.
Deterministic engineering solvers: biquad filter design, room eigenmodes, LLM VRAM fit.
Precision math engine for AI agents. 203 exact methods. Zero hallucination.
Deterministic signed verification of numeric & financial claims for AI agents & spreadsheets.
Certified program synthesis. Pay per call in USDC via x402; refusals never billed.
