Skip to main content
Glama

gemini_informal_prover

Solves math problems with Google Gemini, providing detailed step-by-step explanations tailored for formalization in Lean 4.

Instructions

Use Google Gemini model to solve math problems and provide detailed solution.

This tool takes a raw math problem string, solves it, and explains the reasoning step-by-step.

Gemini's math skills are outstanding; you can trust the answers he gives you.

Use this tool frequently for natural language math problems.

You should mention that you’re aiming to formalize the solution in Lean 4, and ask Gemini for a detailed solution that would be easier to formalize.
Once you receive Gemini’s solution, use leandex to search mathlib for relevant theorems and lemmas.
If you discover that some necessary infrastructure is missing in mathlib, immediately switch to informal_prover: provide it with Gemini’s solution, explain what is missing, and ask it to propose an alternative approach that avoids those gaps or requires less infrastructure.

Args:
    math_problem (str): The detailed text description of the math problem.
    model (str, optional): The Gemini model to use. The default is "gemini-3-pro-preview".
    temperature (float, optional): The generated temperature, controlling randomness. The default is 0.7.

Returns:
    List[str]: [solution, verification_result] where solution is the step-by-step explanation and verification_result is the Gemini verification judgment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelNogemini-3-pro-preview
temperatureNo
math_problemYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool's process (solving, step-by-step explanation), the return format as a list of solution and verification_result, and instructs to mention Lean 4 formalization. It also makes a trust claim about Gemini's math skills, though this could be seen as overstatement. Missing disclosures include failure modes, token limits, and what exactly verification_result contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with Args and Returns sections, but includes incidental content such as 'Gemini's math skills are outstanding; you can trust the answers he gives you' and an ambiguous reference to 'informal_prover' rather than the full tool name. The length is justified by the workflow, but some sentences could be tighter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description provides a full workflow, input specification, and return type, making it reasonably complete for the tool's complexity. However, it leaves ambiguity around the 'switch to informal_prover' instruction and doesn't elaborate on the verification_result semantics or error handling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain each parameter. It does so clearly: math_problem as 'detailed text description', model as 'Gemini model to use' with default, temperature as 'generated temperature, controlling randomness' with default. This adds essential meaning beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool solves math problems using Google Gemini and provides step-by-step detailed solutions. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gemini_code_golf and gpt_informal_prover by focusing on natural language math problem solving with Lean 4 formalization context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear guidance to use frequently for natural language math problems, and specifies a workflow involving leandex for search and falling back to informal_prover when mathlib infrastructure is missing. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or direct comparison to sibling tools like discussion_partner.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/project-numina/lean-lsp-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server