mortgage-tools

estimate_borrowing_power

Estimate indicative borrowing capacity, assessed at a buffered rate (APRA +3% serviceability buffer). A rough proxy for guidance — a broker models real capacity across 30+ lenders. Not credit assistance.

Args:
    annual_income: Gross annual household income in AUD.
    monthly_expenses: Average monthly living expenses in AUD.
    existing_monthly_debt: Existing monthly loan/card commitments in AUD.
    interest_rate_pct: Assumed product interest rate (buffer is added on top).
    term_years: Loan term in years.
    deposit: Cash deposit available in AUD (added to the purchase budget).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`deposit`	No
`term_years`	No
`annual_income`	Yes
`monthly_expenses`	Yes
`interest_rate_pct`	No
`existing_monthly_debt`	No

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses the buffered rate (APRA +3%) and states it is not credit assistance. With no annotations, this is helpful but does not fully disclose assumptions or limitations beyond the buffer.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and key constraints, followed by a clear parameter list. It is informative without being verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While the input parameters are thoroughly described, the description omits any information about the output format or return values, which is a notable gap given the absence of an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides an Args list explaining each parameter's meaning and units in plain language, adding significant value beyond the schema titles and types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it estimates indicative borrowing capacity and labels it as a rough proxy. It distinguishes from broker-assisted real capacity but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tool names like 'calculate_repayments' or 'get_rate_guidance'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description notes it is 'a rough proxy for guidance' and 'Not credit assistance,' providing clear context for use. However, it stops short of explicitly stating when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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

All mortgage-tools tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the mortgage process: repayment calculation, Costco eligibility, loan type comparison, enquiry submission, borrowing power estimation, and rate guidance. There is no functional overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., calculate_repayments, check_costco_eligibility, compare_loan_types), using lowercase with underscores.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a mortgage advisory server, covering key pre-application steps without being overly large or too sparse.

Completeness4/5

The tools cover the core pre-application workflow: calculation, borrowing power, rate guidance, comparison, eligibility, and enquiry. A minor gap is the lack of tools for existing loan management or detailed offer comparison.

Resources

Need Help?