x402node_math_interest

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'Price: unknown on Base (auto-paid in USDC)' implying a cost, but does not clarify if the computation is local or requires an external call, or any side effects. For a pure calculation tool, this is a 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 starts with a keyword list (not ideal), then a sentence, then pricing info. Could be more concise and front-loaded. It is not excessively long, but has some fluff.

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 simple calculator with full schema descriptions, the description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema. It omits behavioral details and output format. No output schema, so agents lack return information. Pricing info is extra but not essential.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds the insight of 'configurable compounding frequency' but does not elaborate beyond the schema. 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 explicitly states it computes simple/compound interest or annuity loan payments with configurable compounding frequency, matching the tool name. The sibling tools are all different domains (astrology, color, etc.), so this tool is clearly distinguished.

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 explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. However, given the sibling tools are unrelated, the context implies this is for financial interest calculations. No 'when-not' or alternative recommendations.

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