Solves algebraic equations for a chosen variable and verifies each solution by exact substitution, helping catch arithmetic or algebraic errors in reasoning.
Solve an algebraic equation and verify every solution by exact substitution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claimed | No | Optional list of claimed solutions to check by substitution. | |
| unknown | No | Variable symbol to solve for (default: 'x'). | |
| equation | Yes | Algebraic equation (e.g., 'x**2 - 5*x + 6 = 0'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: solutions are checked by exact substitution, not numerically. However, it says nothing about behavior on unsolvable/ambiguous equations, error cases, or what the verification result looks like.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and the verification guarantee both earn their place.
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 no annotations, the description should say more about the return shape (solutions plus per-solution verification outcome) and failure modes. As-is it is adequate to call but leaves an agent guessing about the result structure.
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%, with equation, unknown, and claimed all documented in the schema. The description's 'verify every solution' hints at the claimed parameter but adds no format, default, or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides.
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 ('Solve an algebraic equation') plus an added behavior ('verify every solution by exact substitution'). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like verify_step or compute, but it never explicitly names or contrasts with them.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as compute or verify_step. The dual solve+verify phrasing implies a use case, but the agent must infer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.