calculateEvaluate a safe arithmetic expression. Supports +,-,*,/,**,%,sqrt,abs,round,floor,ceil,log,sin,cos,tan,pi,e.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expression | Yes | A safe arithmetic expression, e.g. '(3 + 4) * 2 / sqrt(9)' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| result | No | ||
| expression | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / expression / titleAdded value: +"Expression"Input schema / titleAdded value: +"mcp_calculateArguments"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not restate read-only. The description adds behavioral context by noting the expression is 'safe' (implying no arbitrary code execution) and explicitly enumerating supported functions and constants, which clarifies what the tool can and cannot evaluate. This goes beyond the schema's simple example.
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 with a front-loaded action ('Evaluate') and a compact enumeration of supported operations. Every word contributes value, with no redundant or vague phrasing.
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 that the tool has one parameter, an output schema exists, and the readOnly annotation is provided, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the tool's domain, safe evaluation, and the full set of supported operations, so an agent can invoke it confidently without needing additional behavioral or return-value details.
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 description for the 'expression' parameter covers 100% of the parameter, providing an example. The tool description additionally itemizes accepted operators and functions (+, -, *, /, **, %, sqrt, abs, round, etc.), giving the agent a clearer understanding of valid input format and capabilities beyond the schema alone.
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 uses the specific verb 'evaluate' and clearly identifies the resource as an 'arithmetic expression'. It lists supported operations, making the tool's scope unambiguous and distinguishing it from siblings that deal with currency, stats, transactions, and blockchain data.
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 description implies usage for arithmetic computation by stating 'Evaluate a safe arithmetic expression' and listing supported functions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No alternative tools are named, and no when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct data sources, but several near-duplicates exist: get_token_approvals/get_wallet_approvals, get_defi_positions/get_wallet_positions, and get_wallet_portfolio/get_eth_balance. The descriptions do cross-reference and clarify the differences, so an agent can disambiguate with effort, but names alone are not enough.
The dominant get_<noun> pattern is clear and nearly all names use lowercase snake_case with verb-first conventions. A few tools like calculate, record_predictions, http_fetch, and web_search break the get_ pattern, but the overall style remains predictable.
34 tools is excessive for a single server, even for a broad DeFi/onchain analytics domain. The count is inflated by generic utilities such as calculate, count_text_stats, web_search, and http_fetch, plus multiple overlapping data-retrieval endpoints, making the surface hard to scan.
The set covers an unusually wide range of domain operations: prices, balances, portfolio/positions, approvals, yields, TVL, DEX quotes/volume, transactions, blocks, gas, ENS, contract reads, and risk assessments. It is view-only by design, so missing write/transaction tools is acceptable; minor gaps like address-based token pricing or transaction simulation are workaround-able.