Calculate exponential growth or decay with final = initial × e^(rate × time), including doubling time or half-life.
Model exponential growth or decay: final = initial * e^(rate*time). Includes doubling time or half-life.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rate | Yes | Growth rate (positive=growth, negative=decay). | |
| time | Yes | Time elapsed. | |
| initial | Yes | Initial value. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the tool is a deterministic formula computation and hints at extra outputs (doubling time / half-life), but it never says what the response actually contains or how the two modes are selected, leaving real behavioral ambiguity.
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 compact sentences with the core operation front-loaded. The trailing 'Includes doubling time or half-life' is slightly ambiguous about whether those are outputs or options, but it is short and wastes little.
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, the description should clarify the return value, and it only gestures at 'final' plus an unclear mention of doubling time/half-life. For a simple pure calculator this is borderline adequate, but the return contract remains fuzzy.
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 all three parameters including the sign convention for rate. The description only restates the formula, adding no syntax, units, or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 gives a specific operation (model exponential growth/decay) and an explicit formula tying inputs to output, so an agent knows exactly what is computed. It does not, however, distinguish itself from numeric siblings like calc_compound_interest or geometric_series, 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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no conditions or exclusions. The formula implies the use case, but routing guidance is entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.