burn_rate_runway_calculatorBurn Rate & Runway Calculator — Calculate startup burn rate and cash runway. Gross vs net burn, default alive or dead verdict, and month-by-month cash balance simulation with revenue growth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cashBalance | Yes | ||
| monthlyRevenue | Yes | ||
| monthlyExpenses | Yes | ||
| monthlyExpenseGrowthPct | No | ||
| monthlyRevenueGrowthPct | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals some behaviors (gross vs net burn, default verdict, simulation), but omits assumptions about how growth parameters interact, edge cases, or what the verdict actually means. It adds value but lacks depth.
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 a concise single sentence with useful detail, but it unnecessarily repeats the tool name 'Burn Rate & Runway Calculator' as a prefix. Otherwise, it is front-loaded and free of fluff.
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?
Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lists some output features but does not explain how growth rates are applied, what 'default alive or dead' means, or what the simulation returns. An agent cannot confidently predict invocation behavior or output structure.
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 must compensate. It mentions revenue growth but never mentions monthlyExpenseGrowthPct, and does not map required parameters (cashBalance, monthlyExpenses, monthlyRevenue) to the calculation concepts. Optional growth parameters are only vaguely alluded to.
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 clearly states the tool calculates startup burn rate and cash runway, and lists specific outputs: gross vs net burn, alive/dead verdict, and month-by-month cash balance simulation. This distinguishes it from sibling calculators like break_even_calculator or churn_rate_calculator, which address different financial metrics.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention other calculators or specify scenarios where burn rate/runway analysis is appropriate, relying only on the implied startup finance 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.
Many calculators occupy overlapping conceptual spaces, such as 'ai_roi_calculator' vs 'ai_automation_payback_calculator' and 'llm_self_host_vs_api_calculator' vs 'ai_build_vs_buy_calculator'. The boundaries between debt payoff, savings goal, and drawdown tools are also fuzzy, making it easy for an agent to select the wrong tool despite detailed descriptions.
Every tool follows the same <topic>_calculator pattern with lowercase snake_case, making the naming highly predictable and consistent. Even acronyms and numbers fit the pattern, so there is no mixing of conventions.
122 tools is an extreme number for a single MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold for a severe mismatch. The tools span unrelated domains like AI costs, pet food, concrete, pizza dough, and turkey cooking, creating an unfocused kitchen-sink surface that overwhelms an agent's selection process.
The set covers many common calculator categories such as finance, construction, health, and AI costs, but several staple calculators are missing (e.g., BMI, tip, discount, simple interest, currency conversion). The AI cost cluster is over-saturated while other everyday calculations are absent, leaving minor but noticeable gaps.