Loading ToolBench
Four tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but significant gaps in parameter documentation and output schema clarity. Tool naming is verb-based (get_*) which is good. However, descriptions lack depth on WHEN to use each tool and what distinguishes them. Parameters have type info but descriptions are minimal or missing context. No output schemas documented. Error handling is present in code but not surfaced in tool definitions. The server conflates two similar tools (get_weather vs get_current_weather) without clear differentiation.
Get current time in specified timezone
Get current weather information for a specified city. It extracts the current hour's temperature and weather code, maps the weather code to a human-readable description, and returns a formatted summary.
Get weather information for a city, return json format for AI
Get weather information for a specified city between start and end dates.
Two weather tools (get_weather, get_current_weather) have overlapping functionality without clear differentiation. LLMs will struggle to choose between them. get_weather returns 7-day summary; get_current_weather returns current hour only, but descriptions don't state this.
No output schemas documented for any tool. Callers cannot know what fields to expect (e.g., does get_current_weather return {temp, description, timestamp} or a free-form string?). Code shows JSON responses but tool definitions don't declare structure.
Parameter descriptions are minimal or generic. 'The name of the city' lacks context on format (English only, no special chars?). 'IANA timezone name' is terse, no guidance on fallback if user doesn't provide one (though code hints at UTC default).
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | D | 56 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
get_current_weather and get_weather_by_datetime_range both require English city names and instruct LLM to translate. This is a workaround for API limitation, not a tool design. Should handle translation internally or document the constraint more clearly.
Error handling in code (try/except, ValueError) is not reflected in tool definitions. No guidance on what errors are retryable, what the LLM should do if a city is not found, or how to recover from API failures.