eng-leadership-toolkit

Coaching cost estimator — what should a coach cost?

estimate_coaching_cost

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fair market rate for coaching or mentoring in 2026, by coaching type, client role, coach territory, coach seniority, and engagement length. Returns a per-session range, program total, and red flags (too cheap / brand margin). Anchored to ICF Global Coaching Study 2025, Tandem Coach 2026 credential bands, and CEE market survey data. Same logic as the live calculator at marian.coach.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scope`	No	Engagement length (default single-session) — longer commitments carry a 5-20% per-session discount
`context`	Yes	Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."
`territory`	Yes	Where the coach operates — CEE runs at roughly half of US rates
`client_role`	Yes	The client's role — the same coach charges a VP more than an EM
`coaching_type`	Yes	What kind of coaching the client is buying
`coach_seniority`	Yes	Coach seniority band: certified (ICF ACC level), experienced (PCC, 10+ yrs), top-tier (MCC / C-suite), practitioner-mentor (has held the client's role)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`math`	No	Napkin math behind the case.
`email`	No	Forwardable email to the manager.
`level`	No	Seniority level the score maps to, when the tool computes one.
`report`	Yes	The full human-readable report.
`source`	Yes	Canonical marian.coach page this answer is derived from.
`verdict`	No	Headline verdict, when the tool returns one.
`evidence`	No	Sources the case may cite.
`onePager`	No	Manager-facing one-pager, forwardable to finance.
`salaryEur`	No	Estimated 2026 Western-Europe gross annual salary in EUR.
`objections`	No	The usual objections, answered.
`slackShort`	No	Slack/Teams-length version of the ask.
`totalScore`	No	Weighted 0-10 score, when the tool computes one.
`valueFormula`	No	The four value lines to add up (money saved, cost of delay, missed opportunity, roadmap slippage) plus the count-then-halve CFO rule.
`talkingPoints`	No	Five talking points for the conversation.
`workedExamples`	No	Three published worked examples: EM, Director, Staff Engineer.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the output structure (per-session range, program total, red flags) and grounding it in concrete data sources (ICF 2025, Tandem 2026, CEE survey) and a reference calculator. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core function and key inputs, the second lists outputs, and the third anchors the tool in data sources and a live reference. Every sentence adds essential information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description provides a comprehensive overview of purpose, inputs, outputs, and data basis. An output schema exists, so return-value details are covered elsewhere. The only minor gap is explicit handling of edge cases, but the schema and annotations already provide sufficient context for correct invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for every parameter, including discount rates and seniority calibration. The tool description only restates the parameter list without adding new semantic content, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a clear, specific function: estimating the fair market rate for coaching or mentoring, with explicit input dimensions (coaching type, client role, territory, seniority, engagement length) and outputs (per-session range, program total, red flags). It differentiates from sibling tools like calculate_developer_value by focusing on coaching cost rather than developer/engineering value, and no sibling tool overlaps directly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for cost estimation but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like build_mentoring_business_case or assess_team_lead_readiness. It does not mention exclusions or alternative conditions, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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

All eng-leadership-toolkit 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: assessing readiness, building a business case, calculating value for two different roles, choosing a mentor type, estimating cost, fetching benchmarks, providing guidance, and offering 1:1 playbooks. The only slight overlap is between assess_team_lead_readiness and get_first_time_manager_guidance, both addressing the IC-to-manager transition, but the former is a test with a verdict and the latter is broader guidance, so they remain distinguishable.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: assess_, build_, calculate_, choose_, estimate_, get_. The verbs accurately describe the action, and the nouns specify the object. There are no mixing conventions or vague names like 'process' or 'run'. This is a highly predictable and coherent naming scheme.

Tool Count5/5

With 10 tools, the count is right in the sweet spot for a focused toolkit. Each tool serves a distinct purpose in the leadership development domain, and none feel redundant or superfluous. The number is substantial enough to cover multiple use cases without overwhelming users.

Completeness4/5

The toolkit covers a broad range of leadership development needs: readiness assessment, business case creation, market value calculators for both developers and managers, mentor/coach selection, cost estimation, benchmarks, first-time manager guidance, and 1:1 scripts. The only noticeable gap is perhaps a tool for ongoing development planning or tracking progress, but the existing set covers the primary workflows effectively.

Coaching cost estimator — what should a coach cost?

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources