Calculates 15 quantitative organizational metrics from financials and CSV inputs, flagging missing values as 'pending evaluation' with reasons for PATHWAY diagnostics.
15개 계량지표를 계산합니다. *_csv 인자는 파일 경로 또는 CSV 텍스트. 값이 없는 지표는 '평가 보류'와 이유를 반환합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| financials | No | ||
| period_end | Yes | ||
| roster_csv | No | ||
| period_start | Yes | ||
| decisions_csv | No | ||
| milestones_csv | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavior: metrics lacking data return '평가 보류' plus a reason rather than failing, which tells the agent to expect partial results. However, it says nothing about whether the call mutates state, what permissions are needed, or how the 15 metrics are selected.
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?
Two tight sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the argument-format and edge-case details. Every clause carries information.
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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it never names or categorizes the 15 metrics, does not explain the financials object, and gives no date-format convention for the required period bounds.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the three *_csv parameters accept either a file path or raw CSV text, but leaves financials (an opaque object), period_start, and period_end formats completely undefined, covering only half the parameters.
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 concrete verb and resource with scope: computing 15 metrics over a period. It does not differentiate from the sibling benchmark_metrics, which is the obvious alternative for metric computation, so it stops short of a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of benchmark_metrics as an alternative or of when this tool is preferred over it. Usage is only implied by the required period arguments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.