calculate_sipCalculate future value of a Systematic Investment Plan (SIP).
Args:
monthly_amount: Monthly SIP contribution in rupees.
annual_return_pct: Expected annual return (e.g. 12 for 12%).
years: Investment horizon in years.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| years | Yes | ||
| monthly_amount | Yes | ||
| annual_return_pct | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the purpose but omits relevant behavioral assumptions such as whether compounding is monthly and whether tax or inflation effects are included. For a calculator this is a moderate gap, not a contradiction.
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 compact and front-loaded: one purpose sentence followed by a concise per-parameter explanation. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail, and every sentence adds value.
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?
All three required parameters are clearly documented and the core operation is stated, but there is no output schema and the description does not specify the output units or return format. It also does not state compounding assumptions, which are important for a SIP calculation.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It provides meaningful semantics for every parameter: monthly contribution in rupees, annual return as a percentage with an example, and investment horizon in years. This goes far beyond the bare schema property names.
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 opens with 'Calculate future value of a Systematic Investment Plan (SIP),' a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_cagr, calculate_emi, and calculate_fd_maturity, which target different financial calculations.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calculate_cagr or calculate_emi. The description only documents parameters and leaves the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and financial context.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: the calculate_* tools cover different financial formulas, find_best_* tools recommend different product types, and search/get/compare form a coherent product workflow. There is no realistic ambiguity between tools despite the overlap in financial domain.
Tool names consistently follow a verb-first snake_case pattern, with clear groupings like calculate_*, find_best_*, and get_*. Minor use of abbreviations like CAGR and EMI is natural and does not break the naming convention.
12 tools is well-scoped for a personal finance assistant covering calculators, product search, product details, comparisons, recommendations, and concept explanations. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers core financial calculations, product discovery, comparison, recommendations, and educational explanations, which is strong for the stated purpose. Minor gaps exist around loan/insurance product comparisons and more advanced investment planning, but agents can accomplish most typical finance workflows.