Performs simplify, factor, derive, integrate, zeroes, tangent, area, trig, log, and abs math operations on a supplied expression via the Newton API.
Perform math operations (simplify, derive, integrate, factor, etc.) via Newton API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation | No | Math operation: simplify, factor, derive, integrate, zeroes, tangent, area, cos, sin, tan, arccos, arcsin, arctan, abs, log. | |
| expression | Yes | Math expression (e.g. x^2+2x, 2^2+2(2)). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'via Newton API', which hints at an external dependency, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, error behavior, or response format. For a compute tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?
The description is a single efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes useful examples. It contains no filler, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the required expression parameter.
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?
The tool is low-complexity (2 parameters, one required, no nesting, no output schema) and the schema is fully documented. The description explains the purpose adequately, but it omits when-to-use guidance and any behavioral context, leaving gaps for an agent trying to select and invoke it 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the operation and expression parameters. The description lists example operations that mirror the schema's enum values but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clear verb and resource: 'Perform math operations' with concrete examples (simplify, derive, integrate, factor). It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling math tools such as complex_calc or numerical_integrate.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues to help an agent choose between newton_math and the many other math-oriented siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.