Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Amaltash Investment & Retirement Calculators

by com.amaltash
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Retirement Withdrawal Calculator

safe_spending
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retirement withdrawal calculator with an interactive chart. Finds the highest monthly spending that lasted in at least a chosen share of real US market history since 1928. Use it when the spending amount is the unknown, for retirement income questions, and to check the 4% rule.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "age": "<age>",
      "retire_age": "<retire_age>",
      "end_age": "<end_age>",
      "savings": "<savings>",
      "save_monthly": "<save_monthly>",
      "other_income": "<other_income>",
      "stock": "<stock>",
      "share": "<share>"
    },
    "name": "safe_spending"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ageYesAge today, in whole years, from 18 to 100.
shareYesShare of past periods the money must last in, from 0.5 to 1.
stockYesShare held in stocks, from 0 to 1. The rest is in 10-year US Treasuries.
end_ageYesAge the money must last to. It must be above retire_age, and the span from age must fit in the data since 1928.
savingsYesMoney saved so far, in US dollars.
retire_ageYesAge when saving stops and spending starts. It cannot be below age.
other_incomeYesMonthly income in retirement from other sources, such as Social Security, in today's dollars.
save_monthlyYesDollars added each month until retirement.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: results are derived from real US market history since 1928 and are satisfied probabilistically via the share threshold, which tells the agent the output is a historical simulation rather than a guarantee. It does not describe the response payload, which is a gap given there is no output schema.

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 tight sentences: purpose and output first, then the historical method, then when to use it. The 'interactive chart' mention is the only slightly incidental phrase, but it usefully signals the response is presentational. No filler or restated title text beyond the necessary opening noun phrase.

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?

For an eight-required-parameter calculator with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing conceptual layer: what is being maximized and over what data. What remains unstated is the shape of the returned result (a number plus chart, per the hint), which forces the agent to infer the response. Otherwise complete for its complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every one of the eight parameters is already documented with type, range, and meaning in the schema. The description restates the 'chosen share of past periods' idea but adds no format or interaction detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 names a specific computation: 'Finds the highest monthly spending that lasted in at least a chosen share of real US market history since 1928.' That is a clear verb-plus-resource statement an agent can distinguish from plan-oriented siblings such as retirement_plan or sequence_risk. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Use it when the spending amount is the unknown' is a genuine selection rule that separates this from tools where the spending level is an input, and 'to check the 4% rule' gives a concrete second use case. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it is clear context without routing.

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

All Amaltash Investment & Retirement Calculators toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources