finance_calc

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists input parameters for each mode but does not disclose what the output is (e.g., monthly payment, future value, ROI as percentage), how edge cases are handled, or any side effects. While a calculator is inherently read-only, the description does not confirm return format or error behavior, leaving significant 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?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then efficiently enumerates modes and their parameters. It contains minimal wasted words. The 'percentage (sub_mode: ...)' part is a bit cryptic but still concise. Overall, it is appropriately sized for the information density, though readability could be improved with clearer formatting.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 modes) and the minimal schema (only 'mode' defined) with no output schema, the description is insufficient for correct use. For example, 'simple_interest' lists no parameters at all, and other modes omit required details like what value is produced. An agent would struggle to use modes like 'discount' or 'tip' without additional context. The description provides an overview but not the full operational detail needed.

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?

The schema only defines 'mode' with an enum, and has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description is essential. It does add meaning by listing the parameter names needed per mode (e.g., 'principal+rate+term'), but it lacks units, types, or formats (e.g., rate as decimal vs percent, term in months/years). This partial compensation gaps the full semantics needed for correct invocation.

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 clearly states the tool is for multi-mode financial calculations, listing nine distinct modes with their parameter requirements. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all text/utility tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'calculate', relying on the noun 'calculations', so it's slightly less direct than ideal.

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?

The tool name and description imply it is for financial calculations, which is clear given the sibling list has no other finance tools. The mode list provides internal guidance on when to use each mode (e.g., use 'loan' for loan calculations), but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.