Critical failures across all three tools. Tool definitions appear to be inferred from a Makefile rather than explicitly registered in source code. No actual implementation visible, only tool names, descriptions, and parameter schemas listed without corresponding Python code, handler registration, or MCP server framework integration. Descriptions are present but generic (50-80 chars). Parameter schemas show types and descriptions, but without seeing the actual tool implementation, we cannot verify schema correctness, error handling, or output structure. This is a major red flag: the tools may not actually be implemented.

• Locate and provide the actual Python implementation of these tools. Show the MCP server framework (e.g., mcp.server.Server), tool registration code, and handler functions. Without implementation, this evaluation is incomplete.
• Document output schemas for all tools. Example for basic_math: {"result": {"type": "number", "description": "The computed result"}, "operation": {"type": "string"}, "operands": {"type": "array"}}
• Expand descriptions to 150-250 chars. Example: 'Perform arithmetic operations (add, subtract, multiply, divide) on a list of numbers. Returns the result with optional decimal precision. Use when you need to compute totals, differences, products, or quotients.'
• Convert 'operation' parameter to an enum: {"type": "string", "enum": ["add", "subtract", "multiply", "divide"], "description": "The arithmetic operation to perform. Must be one of: add, subtract, multiply, divide."}
• Add error handling guidance to descriptions. Example: 'If operands is empty, returns an error. If precision is negative, defaults to 0. If operation is invalid, returns a list of valid operations.'