Calculate a Pokémon's CP and actual Attack/Defense/HP for a given level and IVs, with optional Shadow modifiers.
CP (and actual Attack/Defense/HP) for an exact IV spread at a given level, 1.0-50.0 in 0.5 increments, IVs 0-15. Set shadow=True to apply the Shadow attack/defense modifiers used by the real game's CP display.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| level | Yes | ||
| shadow | No | ||
| pokemon | Yes | ||
| attack_iv | Yes | ||
| defense_iv | Yes | ||
| stamina_iv | Yes |
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 of behavior disclosure. It explains the calculation scope, level/IV constraints, and the shadow modifier behavior. It does not detail the return structure, but the core behavioral traits of this pure-calculation tool are well communicated.
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 two compact sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the shadow behavior is added in a single follow-up sentence. Every sentence contributes useful 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 calculator with no output schema and no annotations, the description is mostly complete: it defines inputs, ranges, and shadow behavior. It could be more complete by describing the output format and the expected pokemon identifier format, but the core calling contract is sufficiently clear.
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 add meaning. It does: level is 1.0-50.0 in 0.5 increments, IVs are 0-15, and shadow=True applies Shadow modifiers. The pokemon parameter is not format-specified beyond the schema title, leaving some ambiguity.
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 computes CP and actual Attack/Defense/HP for an exact IV spread at a given level. It also specifies the level and IV range, which distinguishes it from sibling calculation tools like calculate_powerup_cost and calculate_move_damage.
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 intended use is clear: compute exact CP/stats for specific IVs and levels, with shadow handling via a boolean flag. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the exact-IV framing and sibling tool names provide enough contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.